[Standards] shared XML editing update

Fabio Forno fabio.forno at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 10:09:09 UTC 2008


On Feb 7, 2008 1:39 AM, Joonas Govenius <joonas.govenius at gmail.com> wrote:

> The xpath method can't handle two different people appending child nodes
> simultaneously; they would end up in opposite orders on the two clients'
> copies.

True. Perhaps I didn't explain well: I'm not pushing for replacing SXE
with something else, I'm just pointing out that shared document
editing is particular case of more general problem, remote object
synchronization, and the way to do it is application dependent. With
shared editing  you have some requirements, such as handling
concurrent changes; in other scenarios there may be one master
applying changes and one or more consumers displaying those changes
and in these cases xpath selection fits perfectly (or you may use the
ids already supplied by the model used by the application, think of
xhtml, why duplicating the ids of nodes?).

> >  Moreover the
> > particular application could already provide explicit ids for nodes,
> > and the transport could use them.
> I don't think we want to make the transport rely on a particular
> application.

The transport should be neutral and transport "instruction messages"
within a session, if both end point agrees why not letting them use
application ids (again i'm not saying this should supercede SXE,  but
that the end nodes should be able to choose what works better)

> >  Basically what I'm saying is that
> > the application could decide to switch to a different transport if it
> > is more efficient and supported by both clients, but I think that
> > jingle will help a lot in this. Perhaps the protocol won't need
> > changes, just examples showing how to do the negotiation.
> >
> Agreed. I suppose those examples would belong in the XEPs that define
> application types.

exactly ;)

-- 
Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com



More information about the Standards mailing list