[Standards] XEP-0235: data forms?

pavlix pavlix at pavlix.net
Wed Apr 2 21:34:18 UTC 2008


On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:38:05 +0100
Pedro Melo <melo at simplicidade.org> wrote:

> 
> On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Fabio Forno wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Pedro Melo
> > <melo at simplicidade.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I have nothing very strong against Data Forms. My point was
> >> that, for
> >>  clients that use XPath to parse the known parts of the stanza (and
> >>  transparently ignore anything that the client does not support),  
> >> data
> >>  forms are a bit messy :) and a nice semantic XML is much easier to
> >>  parse.
> >>
> >
> > In fact I'd say that Data Forms are good when you don't know in
> > advance all the possible fields, or when you have complex input
> > schemes that must be rendered in clients (e.g. muc or pubsub
> > configuration).
> 
> I think that only the second case holds, when you need to present it  
> to a human.
> 
> If you don't know in advance the fields, your software will not know  
> what to do with them either, right?
> 

Exactly.

> 
> > In the other cases as best practice I wouldn't abuse
> > on them, in order not to be too much verbose (though we may find a
> > way to "binarize" them ;))
> 
> One binary form will rule them all...
> 
> Best regards,


-- 

Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net



More information about the Standards mailing list