On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 18:01, Philipp Hörist <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:10, Dave Cridland wrote: > > The feature is specific to reporting via blocking already. Section 3 > begins: > > Entities that support Service Discovery (XEP-0030) [2] and abuse > reporting using the blocking command as defined in this spec MUST respond > to service discovery requests with a feature of 'urn:xmpp:reporting:1'. > > > > There's no behaviour associated with the report syntax except for > blocking, so it doesn't need another feature. > > > > I would hesitate before suggesting that one XEP should add a "sub > namespace" to another's, I think that could get very confusing very fast. > > > > If we had another consumer of reports, then we'd have another feature > for that mode of consumption (or production, I suppose). > > Yes im aware that this generic namespace is specific for functionality > with blocking command now. > I think the text regarding that is clear enough in the XEP. > > But i think its a missed chance to choose a namespace that semantically > makes more sense. Clearly separating the definition of the generic element, > from the implementation in a specific context. > > Right, but simply supporting the reporting element "somewhere" isn't a feature that drives a behavioural change. So advertising it doesn't mean clients can do something - you need to advertise a usage of it. I understand that advertising a feature does serve the purpose of simply advertising - that is, literally marketing - but the core feature of feature advertising is feature negotiation, and that's perfectly satisfied by the current XEP. So all we could do - if we wanted - is to make it clearer *in the namespace name* that this one is for reporting in blocking. But that's a breaking change for something that's really just cosmetic. > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:06, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > > I agree with everything except this. Why is it insufficient to say "if > you > > support both blocking and reporting then you support reporting in > blocking" ? > > I wrote insufficient, when i believed it was intended that other future > XEPs also are supposed to announce urn:xmpp:reporting:1, but it seems the > author is aware and it was intended that no other XEP can announce this > feature, because it is bound to blocking command. > > Regards > Philipp > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
