Hi,
I'm submitting a new XEP named Pubsub Node Bookmark after the work we
did with nicoco on the XEP-0503: Spaces.
This XEP is quite simple and defines a new <pubsub-node/> element that
act as a bookmark that point to a Pubsub Node.
The goal is to have something very similar to the <conference/> node
defined in XEP-0402: PEP Native Bookmarks, a <pubsub-node/> is even
having an <extensions/> item that is compatible with the ones of
XEP-402, allowing Pubsub Node Bookmarks to be pinned
(https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0402.html) or having custom
notifications settings (https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0492.html).
As you see in the example bellow the id is defined the same way as the
ids in XEP-0402 but this time by using a Pubsub URI.
Here is an example:
<itemid='bookmarks.library.org?;node=books'><pubsub-nodexmlns="urn:xmpp:pubsub-node_bookmark:0"jid="bookmarks.library.org"node="movies"><extensions><pinnedxmlns='urn:xmpp:bookmarks-pinning:0'/></extensions></pubsub-node></item>
Why this XEP ?
A Space is defined as a list of items in a Pubsub Node, those items can
be MUCs but also Pubsub Nodes (for example if you want to have a Blog or
Newsletter in your Space).
Movim is using something a bit similar in an old XEP I defined in 2013:
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html, if Pubsub Node Bookmark is
published, I'll update XEP-0330 to be based on that one.
You can find a HTML version there:
https://movim.eu/xeps/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
I'd be happy to get feedbacks to see how things can be improved :)
Regards,
edhelas
Hi all,
I just submitted a revision to XEP-0503: Spaces. This is something
edhelas and I have been working on last week. I intend to implement it
in slidge, and he intends to implement UI for it in movim.
It is an almost complete rewrite vs the current state, which should not
be an issue since it has not been implemented anywhere yet. I tried to
incorporate the feedback I got, not only from the mailing but in various
MUCs and private conversations I had about the XEP here and there. In
short, a space is now just a pubsub node with appropriate configuration
and payload, and a space service is a pubsub service with feature
requirements.
As per the previous revision, the goal of this XEP is to establish a
minimal viable protocol for clients and servers to build around the
general concept of grouping several entities together. It requires
little to no additional support server-side and should work, in a very
basic form, with what's already available out there. I believe, that,
even in this basic form, it would be nice to have.
edhelas and I will also submit soon(ish) another XEP which could be _a_
way of defining how space-wide affiilations/roles/hats could work, by
using a "space's main MUC". That would allow for both optimising
presence traffic and enforcing consistency between the various rooms of
a space. This, of course, would require some additional server and
client support, but it looks like we can do something that is relatively
usable on any MUC-supporting client. I think it is best to have this in
a separate XEP, for future-proofness, since GC3 is just around the
corner. ;o)
Let me know what you think.
-- nicoco
Version 0.2.0 of XEP-0503 (Server-side spaces) has been released.
Abstract:
This document defines an XMPP protocol to cluster several groupchat
rooms together.
Changelog:
Rewrite using pubsub semantics. (nc)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0503.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
Hello,
I'm forwarding this old message, as it has never been answered, and the author
(namely Dwd) is more active these days.
PAM is very useful in Pubsub toolbox, and I would like to see this
specification in a better state :).
Thanks!
Goffi
---------- Message transmis ----------
Objet : [Standards] XEP-0376 (Pubsub Account Management): some feedbacks
Date : vendredi 15 avril 2022, 10:41:49 heure d’été d’Europe centrale
De : Goffi <goffi(a)goffi.org>
À : standards(a)xmpp.org
Hi,
I'm currently implementing XEP-0376 both client and service side, and here are
my feedbacks.
# Form:
- a small typo in example 1, it's "xmlns" ("s" is missing)
- § 3.3 Unsubscribing: even if it's obvious, an explicit example would be
welcome for unsubscribe too
- there are a lot of questions on this XEP, I'm not sure if it's the best
location for that, IMHO discussing this on standard@ would be more
appropriate.
- § 5 XMPP Registrar Considerations: even if it made me smile a bit, I don't
think that XEP (beside humourous ones) is a location for this kind of jokes.
It's not a big deal for experimental XEPs though.
# Substance:
* § 3.5 auto-subscriptions and § 3.6 Filtering
I don't really understand the sentence "this implies that servers would
gradually acrue any node type which the user has had a capable client at any
time.". Could you formulate it more clearly or at least explain it?
Regarding auto-subscription, XEP-0060 is not great itself about it as it's
mentioning "root collections" and "subsciption_depth" which are notions of
XEP-0248 (and I don't think that there are many complete implementations of
it, if any). But that's a topic which should be discussed on a different
thread.
That put aside, I'm not sure that XEP-0376 should take care at all of auto-
subscription regarding that we have already the filtering with +notify.
This is done on a per-client basis, and if client wants to get says OMEMO
public keys or user mood because it supports those features, I don't see the
need to keep track of it at the server level.
Sure it's broadcast. To my experience this is not a problem: I use +notify to
auto-subscribe when I want update from all users to which I'm presence
subscribed, and if I want only events for a specific user/node, I use an
explicit subscription (in which case PAM is useful).
Thus I would remove entirely § 3.5 and § 3.6, or replace them by a text
indicating that PAM service ignores them and they work as usual with XEP-0060/
XEP-0163 auto-subscription and filtering.
This would make the whole thing simpler, but please explain me with a clear
use-case if I'm missing something.
* § 3.7 interaction with MAM
I guess events should be archived normally by MAM (at least to be sure that
all clients receive them correctly), and I really don't see the need to filter
them out (that's only events about explicit (un)subscription to nodes, the
traffic should not be high).
[this par below is forwarded from a follow-up email]
> * § 3.7 interaction with MAM
>
> I guess events should be archived normally by MAM (at least to be sure that
all clients receive them correctly), and I really don't see the need to filter
them out (that's only events about explicit (un)subscription to nodes, the
traffic should not be high).
Second thought: are you talking about the (un)subscribe notification as
explained at § 3.2, or XEP-0060 items events? In the later case yes, filtering
is probably desirable: if my client doesn't handle blogging, it probably
doesn't want all the XEP-0277 items notifications.
That's it for now. It's a useful addition to pubsub in XMPP, and I hope to see
more implementation in close future.
Cheers
Goffi
I have setup the XSF membership application Wiki page for the
application period Q4-2025
Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are involved
in the Jabber/XMPP community.
To apply, create a page about yourself on the Wiki here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q4_2025
If you don't have a wiki account, send your full name, preferred
nickname and email address to me or one of the other Sysops:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Sysops
When you need help with your application then don't hesitate to contact
me directly
Apply now!!!
Thanks,
Alex
Good afternoon.
I am interested to know of a valid URI for XEP-0248.
Would this be a valid URI?
xmpp:comments.hostname?;node=node_collection/node_leaf;item=item_id
Kind regards,
Schimon
Good day.
Previously, we have discussed about comments node over PEP.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html#comment_add
> Note: A comments node SHOULD be located at a generic
> publish-subscribe node that is not attached to a user's IM account,
> but MAY be located at a personal eventing (PEP) node.
While PEP nodes are only accessible to the account owner, it is desired
to have people to post items to PEP comments node.
I would advise to utilize XLink as a mean of references to moderators
and by that, it would be possible to create a uniform comment
moderation mechanism for posting comments of Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277
and XEP-0472).
https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/
Kind regards,
Schimon
Good day. Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am exploring the specification XLL (XLink).
XLink (XML Linking Language) allows to define links within an XML
document;
It provides a standard way for specifying relationships between
resources, such as documents or elements in those documents; and
This can be helpful when working with large and complex data sets, where
maintaining connections between different parts becomes crucial.
An excerpt from an article of Mr. Hank Simon.
> XLink, a language that dramatically extends the capabilities of
> linking documents well beyond the abilities of mere HTML internet
> pages.
> XLink enables bidirectional linking, multiway linking, and
> out-of-line linking. Bidirectional linking is simply the idea of
> visiting an internet page and returning to the starting point by
> clicking on the same link again. Multiway linking is the
> implementation of Web rings by using XLink.
I was wondering whether XLink could be utilized for forwarded messages
and perhaps for other purposes or situations that may require more
elaborated solutions such as bidirectional linking.
Kind regards,
Schimon
[CC'ing standards@, as I'd like to engage the community regarding our
usage of Github]
On 07/08/2025 18.50, E.M. wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> hereby I will post on today's Board Meeting. Ref: https://wiki.xmpp.org/
> web/Board-Meeting-2025
>
> We have a two items to vote for, too. Please clearly indicate how (+1,
> 0, -1) and on what you are voting (topic).
>
> Furthermore, we are proposing to have another Board meeting in one week at
> Thursday, 14 Aug 2025
> Time: 16:00 UTC / 18:00 CEST
> (Can anyone update the calendar if we agree here?)
>
> Please comment if there are any other topics or input on the items.
>
> Cheers,
> Eddie
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> * XEP-0001 and 0143 changes need approval from Board
> ** Call to provide you input to the changes and place a comment or review.
> Link 1: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1412
This contains some good changes, like the advise to read, understand,
and agree to our IPR. However, I find the the strong emphasis on Github
PRs very problematic. Especially the part where we tell people that if
they don't have a github account and are not willing to sign up for one,
they should find someone who has one.
The XSF should not require the usage of a propriety service for
contributions.
On the other side, I do acknowledge that using a CI-based system for
contributions has its advantage. Therefore, a change which mentions that
we also accept contributions via Github, outlining the existence of a CI
there, would be acceptable to me.
But it is my strong believe that we should always accept contributions
via mail.
Therefore -1, as is.
On a side note: We may also want to point out that it is possible to
validate changes locally. And we probably should look into codeforge
alternatives. But that is outside of the scope of this PR.
> Link 2: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407
+1, thanks for writing this.
> Link 3: ?
Do we have this link by now?
> * Update on Fiscal Hosting
> ** Background: The platform we have been using for fiscal hosting is to
> begin moving to a new pricing structure in January, and this affects us.
> Details: https://pricing-2026.opencollective.com/
> *** Votes: The XSF Board votes to close the fiscal hosting offering via
> Open Collective without replacement and asks the community to suggest
> alternatives instead of publishing a survey.
+1, as per Matt's analysis, opencollective seems to be to expensive for us.
> * Confusion in protocol name (XMTP)
> ** Background: See Board mailing list
> ** Comment: We don't see that we can do much about it, as XMPP is not a
> trademark and they are already aware.
I think there is not much we can do after the fact.
> * Propose Gonzalo Nemmi (gnemmi) to become member of the XSF CommTeam
> ** Background: Gonzalo is publishing and providing great efforts along
> the team and work well with the XSF and Community. This deserves
> recognition.
> ** Votes: The XSF Board votes that if Gonzalo Nemmi (gnemmi) will be
> accepted as XSF member,
I don't think Board is the right body to approve new members.
> that Gonzalo Nemmi (gnemmi) can join the XSF
> CommTeam.
+1, assuming they fulfill the prerequisites (e.g., being an XSF member).
> ** Comment: Jcbrand will be unlisted after not responding but is always
> welcome to support and comeback.
Thanks for your work JC!
- Flow
