[Standards] NEW: XEP-0224 (Attention)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Sat Aug 11 02:39:11 UTC 2007


On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 02:06:19AM +0200, Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 01:57, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> 
> >On 8/11/07, Andreas Monitzer <jig at monitzer.com> wrote:
> >>Hmm would that be so bad? A headline window will surely draw more
> >>attention than a regular message.
> >
> >How this separate window would associate with a chat thread?
> >Especially if chat and headline messages are stored in different
> >histories.
> 
> The message of the headline is not part of the discussion, and so  
> shouldn't be stored along the rest. There is no association.

My suggestion is that you send a message of type chat to the full JID of
the person you've been chatting with to get their attention. If we do
that, your worries about headline messages are moot.

> >IQ has a fixed clear structure. Its parsing usually performed by one
> >routine,
> 
> I don't know many XMPP implementations, but in libpurple, <message/>  
> is handled by a single function, whereas <iq/>-handling is spread  
> around the whole XMPP plugin (since nearly every feature uses an iq  
> stanza at some point).

It sounds as if the handling of IQ vs. message stanzas is different in
different implementations, so I don't think we can take that as an
argument one way or the other.

It seems to me that these attention requests will be sent in the 
context of an existing chat. In that case, sending a chat message to 
the full JID would make sense:

<message from='calvin at usrobots.lit/lab' to='herbie at usrobots.lit/home'
type='chat'>
  <attention xmlns='http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0224.html#ns'/>
</message>

This is pretty much equivalent to IQ except that no ack is needed or
expected. Which seems reasonable to me in this context. You're just
saying "hey!"

> >But it's not a big deal to process a message instead of IQ. What I
> >want from any protocol detail is a feedback. XMPP would be much nicer
> >if any stanza required an acknowledgement. 

Feel free to implement XEP-0198. Or just use SIP, they ack everything!

> For now, messages and
> >presences are thrown without an acknowledgement (except for an ugly
> >presence usage in XEP-0045 AFAIK). So, I'd like to use them as seldom
> >as possible. Only if using message is unavoidable it may be used. (If
> >I could, I'd use IQ even for a regular messaging.)
> 
> This sounds more like you have a general issue with the XMPP protocol  
> as such. This is outside the scope of my XEP, please discuss this on  
> this list on the topic of rfc3921bis.
> 
> andy

What Andy said.

Peter




More information about the Standards mailing list