[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,

-  LW

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 mailing list