[Council] proposed relationship metadata JEP
Matthew A. Miller
linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Dec 17 09:57:32 CST 2003
For the most part, I like this better than the original setup within
JEP-0123. There is one issue and a couple of questions I have.
The changes to disco give me pause. The addition of the "uri" attribute
also changes the requirements for the "jid" attribute from "required" to
"optional". This change would break some existing implementations of
disco, which expect there to always be a valid JID. The only thing I
can think of for now is to add an additional element to #items to
represent URI-based things (maybe <ref uri='some-uri' name='some name'/>
or some such). I'm just very concerned about making breaking changes to
disco (which I've seen used quite successfully) this late in its game.
Second, the protocol for retrieving relationship metadata uses <item/>
in an "#info" query, rather than an "#items" query. I'm guessing this
was a just an oversight. However, I wonder if we could have
accomplished the same result by simply making a "#items" query to the
already (soon-to-be) registered well-known "metadata" node from
JEP-0123. I'm not objecting to having two JEPs (so this doesn't need to
be moved back to JEP-0123 on my account), but I wonder if we might make
better use of our registry this way.
Just my thoughts,
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>A first pass of the relationship metadata JEP is here:
>Note the required/requested change to disco#items.
More information about the Council