[Standards-JIG] proto-xep - Shared XML Documents - Hash Node

Joonas Govenius joonas.govenius at gmail.com
Fri Oct 13 22:22:56 UTC 2006

On 10/11/06, Chris Mullins <chris.mullins at coversant.net> wrote:
> I don't understand the point of the "hash" element. The name "hash" is
> very misleading. It's really "id". Seems as if we should just use the
> standard id attribute on the packet. Nothing is preventing us from
> adding an "id" to the message stanza.
> I see that it's unique as sent by a user, but over what time period? I
> imagine these editing sessions could go on a long time (especially if
> they're MUC based), which means I may get connected/disconnected which
> will, in turn, generally mean my hash id's are going to start over at 1,
> as the client doesn't really have a mechanism for asking the owner "what
> hash ID should I start with?".
> If uniqueness is really required, then we should use GUID's or provide a
> mechanism for "give me an ID".

Like I mentioned, I initially tried to make the XEP not depend on any
extensions to MUC. I'm pretty sure this "hash" is useless if we have
the server handle connecting users. For 1-to-1 there are no
"connecting users" after the session has been established.


More information about the Standards mailing list