[Council] meeting log 2006-11-29, PEP
ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Fri Dec 1 12:17:23 CST 2006
Ian Paterson wrote:
> Ralph Meijer wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:48 +0000, Ian Paterson wrote:
>>> I'm +1 for PEP enabling multiple nodes under one namespace. This
>>> will be useful for some use cases (e.g. several blog feeds per person).
>>> However, IMHO we *also* need to keep the possibility of well-known
>>> node names (and well-known item IDs). Well-known is good because it
>>> eliminates unnecessary discovery steps.
>> Well, if you allow multiple nodes under one namespace, this doesn't
>> work. There can be only one node at a well-known node, so you need to
>> discover the node's identity to see if it is a leaf or collection.
> Yes, although I was thinking that this would be specified (MUST) in
> the XEP that specifies the existance of the namespace (urn:xmpp:pubkeys).
I'm not sure if I explained myself there... In other words, each XEP
could specify whether the namespace may have one well-known node (with
multiple items), or multiple (typically unspecified) nodes.
More information about the Council