[Standards-JIG] JEP-60 Item id for node configuration change notifications

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jun 14 13:49:44 UTC 2006

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 03:03:35PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I've added this to my working copy, using a <configuration/> element.

Cool. Like it!

> >>>>Also, I'm still not sure about the access attribute to the <configure/>
> >>>>element in the other namespaces. I know it would be easier for PEP, but
> >>>>I don't know if avoiding forms there is needed/a good idea.
> >>>I don't see any great harm in the 'access' attribute, just as I don't
> >>>see any great harm in the 'type' attribute in an example like this:
> >>>
> >>><iq type='set'
> >>>    from='bard at shakespeare.lit/globe'
> >>>    to='pubsub.shakespeare.lit'
> >>>    id='create3'>
> >>>  <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
> >>>    <create node='announcements' type='collection'/>
> >>>  </pubsub>
> >>></iq>
> >>>
> >>>That is, we could do that with a data form that includes the correct
> >>>value of the "pubsub#type" field. But do we gain anything by removing
> >>>the 'access' and 'type' attributes here and using data forms instead?
> >>Heh, yeah. I think we added those attributes to simplify the protocol
> >>for PEP. For now I think we should only use forms, really. The 'problem'
> >>is that we now have configuration data spread over attributes of
> >><create/> and the contents of <configure/> (whether as JEP-0004 form or
> >>some other namespaced XML for custom implementations).
> >
> >In 1.7 we have things like this (current Example 100):
> >
> ><iq type="set"
> >    from="pgm at jabber.org"
> >    to="pubsub.jabber.org"
> >    id="create3">
> >    <pubsub xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub">
> >        <create node="test"
> >	        type="collection"/>
> >    </pubsub>
> ></iq>
> >
> >So the 'type' attribute is already in use (we're not currently using a
> >data form for that when creating a collection node).
> Ralph, what do you think about this?

I think it used to be a configuration option only. I haven't really
made a choice here yet. Both have their merits.



More information about the Standards mailing list