[Council] Re: VOTE: JEP-0133 (Service Administration)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 1 16:22:31 CST 2004


In article <081A634B-419A-11D9-B337-000A95984138 at box5.net>,
 Thomas Muldowney <temas at box5.net> wrote:

> Only thing that is jumping out at me is related to FORM_TYPE.  All of 
> the FORM_TYPE entries use the same namespace which is kind of annoying 
> because it means you have to go back a step to the command node 
> attribute to get a more true definition of what form is being filled 
> out.  From looking over the FORM_TYPE JEP and other FORM_TYPE users 
> (pubsub and muc) I would say this is probably wrong and we need a more 
> complete FORM_TYPE for each separate form.  Yay/nay?

I'd say "maybe". ;-)

My understanding of the FORM_TYPE field is that it is intended to 
provide a way to scope a variable (for example, it seems to me that the 
'jid' field refers to the same thing in all of these interactions). The 
FORM_TYPE is not intended to uniquely identify a specific form in the 
way you describe -- presumably the entity initiating the interaction (in 
this case a client) would keep track of the fact that a certain 'id' 
attribute value is connected with a request to set the welcome message 
or whatever, and thus would not need to depend on the FORM_TYPE to make 
that determination. At least, that is how I understand FORM_TYPEs. But 
perhaps I'm wrong about their meaning and usage -- it wouldn't be the 
first time. :-)

/psa



More information about the Council mailing list