[Social] OMB and XMPP

David Banes david at banes.org
Fri Apr 30 18:47:26 CDT 2010


On 01/05/2010, at 6:40 AM, bear wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 16:02, Bob Wyman <bob at wyman.us> wrote:
>> Brion Vibber <brion at status.net> wrote:
>>>  use cases for XMPP on StatusNet
>> You've got three use cases, two of which need the Atom data and one (use
>> with dumb chat client), without question, doesn't need it at all. (note:
>> "dumb" is not meant in a pejorative sense)  I would suggest that if you
>> really, really want to optimize the dumb-chat-client case then you might
>> consider offering two alternative jids for folk to subscribe to. Do minimal
>> chat-only content on one and offer the "Atom over XMPP" feed (potentially
>> with none of the chat overhead) on the other. But, please don't eliminate
>> the Atom stuff entirely. I think you'll find that it *will* be used, even if
>> it isn't well used today.
> 
> For Status.net I would think an option to enable Atom-over-XMPP would work:
> 
> default - XHTML-IM only
> "fat" - Atom over XMPP


That give me an idea - why don't we design a fourth stanza format - 'Publish', so we'd have

- iq
- presence
- message
- publish

'Publish' could contain Atom, or not, see Andy's earlier post. 'Publish' would have child elements of something like;

- reply
- comment

Just an idea, which formally separates XTHML-IM and maybe gives us XHTML-Publish?


> 
> This is also something that could be handled by having two PubSub nodes.
> 



David Banes

http:/www.davidbanes.com/
http://www.cleartext.com/
Twitter: @dbanes
xmpp: dbanes at jabber.org







More information about the social mailing list