[Council] VOTE: JEP-0011
jeremie at jabber.org
Wed Apr 3 13:39:36 CST 2002
First note: it's probably good to CC the JEP authors on threads like this.
I remember discussing this change, and thought it was on a list or in gc
somewhere, but can't find the archives. The only reason I can remember
for not making this change was compatibility mainly with your (pgm's)
clients and my implementation in the server and conferencing.
I like the item way better as well, not sure anymore why it wasn't from
the start, so if your willing to update your clients, we can at least be
sure the 1.5+ servers support this new style. So, shall we update 0011
with this and try again? Any other comments?
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Peter Millard wrote:
> I'm going to vote a -1 on the current incarnation of this JEP. Here's why:
> The main reason for this is that it doesn't seem that we are "allowing"
> enough room for this protocol to expand. Specifically, I have issues w/
> section 3 which describes the protocol for specifying the jid-types... It
> seems that forcing all applications of Jabber to conform to these specified
> categories is too restrictive and confining. Section 6 also states that
> defining new categories has to be done with an addendum to the JEP or a new
> What I would propose is to have the protocol look something like (from
> Example 2 in the JEP):
> <iq type="result" from="jer at jabber.org" id="browse1">
> <item xmlns="jabber:iq:browse" category="user" jid="jer at jabber.org
> <item category="user" type="client" jid="jer at jabber.org/foxy"/>
> <item category="application" type="game"
> jid="jer at jabber.org/chess"/>
> <item category="user" type="client" jid="jer at jabber.org/palm"/>
> This allows all items to have a consistant schema and the schema can grow
> and expand as we add more categories. I think we should define the
> categories listed in the JEP as "standard" categories, and use the same
> rules for expanded the type attribute for categories. (If I want to use a
> non-standard category, prefix it with "x-").
> This is the main issue that I have w/ the JEP.. I think browsing is super
> important, and we NEED to get a standard going ASAP, but I also don't want
> to implement a protocol that we aren't all comfortable with just because
> it's been implemented in the server, and a few clients. (Winjab is the only
> mainstream browser that I know of that really uses browse).
> Hopefully we can get this fixed up and re-vote on it soon.
> Other comments?
> Peter M.
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
More information about the Council