[Standards] pubsub/pep auto-creation
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Mar 22 17:13:13 UTC 2007
Rachel Blackman wrote:
>>>> The convincing argument [for publish+configure] should be the fact that
>>>> [without it] you can never assume on a publish that you are
>>>> publishing an
>>>> item the way you want it, unless you check configuration. And even
>>>> checking doesn't guarantee you that your item will be published
>>>> if some other resource is posting public events to it.
>>> Yes, this argument seems very convincing.
>>> +1 publish+configure for PEP
>> But as I just mentioned in the jdev room, publish+configure doesn't
>> give you per-item ACLs, it gives you publish plus (perhaps) toggle the
>> node configuration, which is quite different.
> I don't think we need ACLs, necessarily.
OK maybe I misunderstood. It seemed to me that folks wanted to do
"publish item #1 and make it private, but publish item #2 and make it
public", all to the same node.
>> I think we need a MUC meeting about this. :)
> Honestly, I don't. If people want ACLs in PEP, that's an entirely
> different discussion; it isn't this one. ;)
We already have ACLs via node configuration. But we don't have per-item
control over that. And that seems fine to me!
> I'll point out that iChat has evidently given up and DOES just stuff
> PEP-based XEPs into their presence stanzas (for instance, User Tune is
> embedded right there in at least a few iChat presence stanzas I've seen
> lately, perhaps from the Leopard iChat).
iChat has been doing that for a long time. Part of the problem is that
they use one of the open-source servers for iChat server and everything
needs to Just Work [tm]. So until the open-source server codebase they
use supports PEP, iChat won't support it either. Therefore....
> If we don't get PEP up and
> running after this long, I'm pretty sure that eventually other client
> devs will just throw in the towel and follow iChat's lead on this one.
Yes yes yes. Can we get consensus and start coding? Rough consensus and
running code, after all. And yes sometimes the consensus is rougher than
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards