Hi again! I'll certainly make a PR, but I'm waiting for a while, to: - give others an opportunity to provide feedback - find out, while I continue working down the XEP, if there are other things that I'd like to address. One such 'other thing' is this: XEP-0060 in section 4.6 defines two forms of addressing: JID and JID+NodeID. It states the JID format SHOULD be used when using a protocol that does not support the node attribute. However, it does not explicitly prohibit the JID format from being used if the protocol _does_ support the node attribute, right? I believe that this leaves the door open to using the JID address format with Service Discovery. Unless I'm mistaken, this is then a valid equivalent of example 10: <iq type='result' from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit/barracks' id='nodes1'> <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items'> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/blogs' name='Weblog updates'/> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/news' name='News and announcements'/> </query> </iq> This seems to be indistinguishable from a response that discovers items (rather than nodes) as specified in section 5.5. Using JID+NodeID in a protocol that supports the node attribute seems a silly thing to do to me, but I don't think it is forbidden by the XEP. Should we add a restriction (or at least a recommendation)? Kind regards, Guus On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:32 AM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi Guus,
We're in agreement, I think. I do prefer example 11 to be removed. Your argument of keeping it is based on it being used to discover _items_. That practice (discovering items) is not defined in section 5.2. Instead, that is in section 5.5. Section 5.5 already has an appropriate example).
You're right, items discovery is only mentioned at the end of §5.2, and §5.5 describes it. So example 11 can be removed too.
Regarding hierarchy, XEP-0496 and XEP-0499 are explicitly backward compatible, meaning that all nodes are returned if extended discovery is not used. So we can remove the notion of "first-level nodes" from the description of example 10 (except if we want to keep it due to XEP-0248).
Will you make a PR for those changes? For a stable XEP it will have to go through council, and authors input would be good to have too.
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org