[standards-jig] field standardization (JEP-0068)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Apr 24 15:40:36 UTC 2003


I've been looking at how the Jabber Registrar will apply JEP-0068 
within the context of specific JEPs. It seems that JEP-0068 specifies
that the information boundary or "data space" is delimited by the
existing namespaces associated with a JEP. But I'm wondering if perhaps
this is too generic, and instead the boundaries should be set by
specific forms used within those namespaces. Let me explain...

In Multi-User Chat, the forms related to users (e.g., registering 
with a room) are quite different from the forms related to room 
owners (e.g., creating or configuring rooms). We might even have 
quite separate forms, and therefore distinct "data spaces", within one 
namespace (e.g., owner configuration might use a totally different set 
of form variables than some other owner interaction with the room). So
my feeling is that registering all values at the level of the namespace
might not be granular enough. Right now it seems that we might be able
to get away with "sub-namepsaces" such as muc#user and muc#owner, but
that feels too dependent on the use of sub-namespaces. So I wonder if we
need to somehow define forms related to namespaces, perhaps like so:

       <field var="FORM_NS" type="hidden">
         <value>http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#owner</value>
       </field>
       <field var="FORM_TYPE" type="hidden">
         <value>configuration</value>
       </field>

Alternatively we could overload the FORM_TYPE value:

       <field var="FORM_TYPE" type="hidden">
         <value>http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#owner:creation</value>
       </field>

But that seems a bit hackish.

Maybe I'm making too much out of this, and sub-namespaces are enough.

Thoughts?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php



More information about the Standards mailing list