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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Dec 6 17:41:26 CST 2004


In article <stpeter-F4AD15.15223101122004 at sea.gmane.org>,
 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> 
 wrote:

> 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. :-)

An updated version is now available (0.8):

http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0133.html

Still not sure exactly how we want to address the expressed desire 
(requirement?) to more triumphantly limit the list of active or 
registered users (e.g., regex matching?).

/psa



More information about the Council mailing list