[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: 1.8pre18

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jun 14 14:38:46 UTC 2006

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:26:33AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> > The way collections are setup currently is that the reference to the
> > parent node is held in the configuration of the child node. This works
> > great for notification, but not for top-to-bottom stuff like permission
> > checking. In the end it is an implementation detail, of course, but I'm
> > not sure if such application specific configuration options need to go
> > into JEP-0060.
> Why not just set up the default node configuration options to be what
> you want? And what happens if you move a node from one collection to
> another, or a node is associated with multiple collections (each of
> which requires inheritance)? Since the need seems to be fairly
> specialized, for now I think I'd rather leave these sticky issues up to
> implementors. :-)


Oh, wait. I'm an implementor! :-)

> > Note that section 3.4 of JEP-0068 (Field Standardization for Data Forms)
> > describes how custom options (== field names) should be named. The MUST
> > always begin with 'x-'. So in your example: 'x-inherit-perms'.
> Sure.

The reason I say this is because there are implementations of and/or
suggestions for new options that don't do this and just prepend their
custom stuff with 'pubsub#'. Maybe we should explicitely point to
this in JEP-0068.

> > The use of 'pubsub#' as a prefix is redundant because we always have a
> > FORM_TYPE field that indicates JEP-0068 semantics. We should have gotten
> > rid of it long ago.
> > 
> > To Peter: can we still do that?
> I agree it's silly, but I see no good reason to change it now.

Right. The former is more important.



More information about the Standards mailing list