[Council] VOTE: JEP-0011

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Wed Apr 3 14:06:15 CST 2002


Jeremie wrote:

>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?
>
Depends if this is legacy or not. Are we going to change the namespace 
from browse, since there are already (4+) clients/libraries which 
support the old incarnation of browse, as well as (at least) six 
open-source or commercial components and routers using the old 
incarnation of browse.

I'd vote 0 for no changes on browse, just because we are tied by 
existing implementation. If browse is actually open for changes, there 
are a lot more comments and suggestions I have on it, and I would 
definately vote -1 on the current incarnation with or without this minor 
change.

-David Waite

>
>
>Jer
>
>
>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
>>JEP.
>>
>>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
>>name="jer">
>>        <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"/>
>>    </item>
>></iq>
>>
>>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
>>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Council mailing list
>Council at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20020403/c9153729/attachment.html


More information about the Council mailing list