[Standards-JIG] Re: Historical XEPs

Maciek Niedzielski machekku at uaznia.net
Thu Nov 16 22:22:22 UTC 2006


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>> Yes, XML Storage doesn't need PEP: it just needs well-know PubSub node.
>> But if we already decided to have IM-PubSub for PEP, it doesn't make
>> sense to write another spec for private nodes and expect server
>> developers to implement it.
> 
> In fact it's already pretty much in PEP, since a PEP node with an access
> model of "whitelist" and no entities on the whitelist effectively
> results in a node that enables private data storage. However, nothing in
> XEP-0163 (or elsewhere) really explains how that would work in detail.

Wasn't this added just to make private storage via PEP possible? ;)
It wasn't a part of older PEP, the extended-presence PEP. Now we have
PErsonal Pubsub ;)

-- 
Maciek                       A: It's against natural order of reading.
 xmpp:machekku at uaznia.net   Q: Why is that?
 xmpp:machekku at chrome.pl   A: People answering above quoted text.
                          Q: What's the most annoying on newsgroups?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061116/9398df17/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list