[standards-jig] disco, x:data, etc...

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Wed Feb 19 19:53:39 UTC 2003


First, the admin problems that Alexey is trying to solve are exactly
what x-commands is designed for.  Why not just use x-commands?

Second, FORM_TYPE (currently) does not fully address Alexey's issue,
because the schema (and DTD) for x:data does not allow for the <query/>
element, or for the node attribute in its container (<x/>).  Adding
these to FORM_TYPE would seem to suggest that FORM_TYPE become a
derivative namespace or wrapping namespace of x:data.

Essentially, I don't see JEP-0068 as completely addressing Alexey's
problem as JEP-0050 would.  What JEP-0050 cannot solve is the vague
requirement to send messages and/or presence to ejabberd admin nodes,
which I believe is better handled with server-specific resources (and is
thus an implementation issue, not a standards issue)


-  LW

PS:  It might be beneficial for Alexey to talk with Rob Norris, who is
also looking to provide jabber-based administration, but by using
x-commands.  But this is now an implementation detail, not necessarily a
standards issue (-: 


On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:46, David Waite wrote: 
> Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> 
> >Responses in-line:
> >
> >On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 12:25, Alexey Shchepin wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Hello, Matthew!
> >>
> >>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:49:32 -0800, you said:
> >>
> >> MAM> Hola, First, the use of x:data you have is not "as spec". x:data is not
> >> MAM> meant to "stand alone" in the form you are using it.
> >>
> >>Where in spec writen that I can't do this? :)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >jabber:x:data does not have the element <query/>, let alone with the
> >attribute "node", as detailed in Section 8.1.  That alone can be
> >considered "not as spec".
> >
> >In addition, Section 3.2 of JEP-0004 states that x:data is not useful on
> >its own, that it needs something to give it context (such as a
> >containing namespace).  While this does not explicitly state the usage
> >presented by ejabberd is incorrect, it is implied.
> >
> >Maybe this is something the council and authors of JEP-0004 need to
> >address?
> >
> Sorry it took me a little bit to reply.
> 
>  From http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0004.html#sect-id2592305 :
> "The context for the jabber:x:data packet is provided by the surrounding 
> packet."
> 
> Perhaps this should be changed in the face of JEP-0068 
> (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0068.html), which standardizes the 
> FORM_TYPE hidden field? Context could be provided by either a 
> surrounding namespaced element or FORM_TYPE.
> 
> - David Waite
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig



-- 

Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net

- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)




More information about the Standards mailing list