[Standards] pubsub: singleton nodes

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Sep 24 21:38:34 UTC 2007

Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 16:08 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Back in May, Joe Hildebrand mentioned the idea of a recommended ItemID
>> for nodes where you want to have only one item:
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-May/015423.html
>> I have added that in version 1.10pre9:
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.10.html#impl-singleton
>> Feedback is welcome.
> I think this is a good idea.
> First of all, there is a typo in there 'RECOMMENDE' instead of

Corrected in my working copy.

> Further, we had this before in the extended presence XEPs, except we
> used 'current' instead. 

As I explained previously, the "current" stuff was just an example as
far as I know, and was not intended by pgmillard to mean "singleton".

That said, I'm happy to use "current" instead of "singleton" just in
case people understood those examples to mean "this item is a
singleton". I have modified my working copy to use that convention
instead of "SINGLETON" or "singleton".

> I really dislike all caps.

But this positively SHOUTS that that the items are singletons. ;-)

I don't care if it is all-caps or lower-case. The latter is fine by me.

> No need to refer to 'NodeID is an XML namespace'. Just stating that if a
> particular node is intended to have at most one item, it SHOULD use
> 'current' (or whatever), is enough.

That's right. I've corrected the text accordingly.




Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070924/3052dd99/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list