[Council] VOTE: JEP-0020 (Feature Negotiation)

Joe Hildebrand JHildebrand at jabber.com
Fri Oct 18 18:43:25 CDT 2002


PGM and I have disagreed about this already, with respect to disco.  May as
well open the can of worms publicly.

I potentially agree with DW, except I'd use type='form' and options:

 <iq type="get" id="1" to="jack at jabber.org/client">
    <query xmlns="jabber:iq:negotiate">
      <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='form'>
 	  <field var="jabber:iq:oob" type='list-multi'>
          <option>p2p-initiate</option>
          <option>p2p-receive</option>
          <option>webdav</option>
          <option>jabber-pass</option>
         </field>
        </x>
    </query>
 </iq>

I also note that just because this is a form, doesn't mean implementations
have to show a form to a user, particularly if JANA has standardized the var
names and option names.

PGM's rebuttal that XML is already a generic method for describing data *is*
starting to sink in, though, so I'm not yet sold on this approach...

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Waite [mailto:mass at akuma.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:03 AM
> To: council at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Council] VOTE: JEP-0020 (Feature Negotiation)
> 
> 
> I've been pondering whether x:data would be usable for this. Is
> 
> <iq type="get" id="1" to="jack at jabber.org/client">
>    <query xmlns="jabber:iq:negotiate">
> 	  <feature type="jabber:iq:oob">
>        <option>p2p-initiate</option>
>        <option>p2p-receive</option>
>        <option>webdav</option>
>        <option>jabber-pass</option>
>      </feature>
>    </query>
> </iq>
> 
> that different from something like
> 
> <iq type="get" id="1" to="jack at jabber.org/client">
>    <query xmlns="jabber:iq:negotiate">
>         <x xmlns='jabber:x:data'>
> 	  <field var="jabber:iq:oob" type='list-multi'>
>                <value>p2p-initiate</value>
>                <value>p2p-receive</value>
>                <value>webdav</value>
>                <value>jabber-pass</value>
>            </field>
>        </x>
>    </query>
> </iq>
> 
> Actually, Example 4 within the feature negotiation JEP describes 
> negotiating the time and place for lunch - this could be a plain form 
> presented to the user via x:data.
> 
> x:data does not require the user to enter the data, although it does 
> have minimal information added to allow for user 
> presentation. If field 
> identifiers and values are registered with an JANA/IANA 
> organization or 
> mutually understood by all parties involved, the data can be 
> manipulated and understood by software rather than by a human user.
> 
> So, should feature negotiation just use x:data?
> 
> -David Waite
> 
> On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 20:04 America/Denver, Julian Missig wrote:
> 
> > 0
> >
> > On Saturday, Oct 12, 2002, at 12:39 US/Eastern, Peter Saint-Andre 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The Last Call for JEP-0020 (Feature Negotiation) ended 
> yesterday, so 
> >> it's
> >> time to vote. This is a Standards-Track JEP, so +1 means 
> you approve 
> >> of
> >> advancing it to Draft status, 0 means neutral, and -1 
> means you have
> >> objections.
> >>
> >> http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0020.html
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Saint-Andre
> >> Jabber Software Foundation
> >> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> 



More information about the Council mailing list