[Standards] XEP-0060 version 1.1pre1
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Feb 15 18:35:46 UTC 2008
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Ralph Meijer wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 11:57 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Per recent list discussion, Ralph Meijer and I have provisionally
>>> adjusted XEP-0060 (Publish-Subscribe) to cover the use case of
>>> disassociating a node from a collection.
>> I see the attribute to refer to the node being dis/associated is still
>> called 'id', where I proposed 'node' for consistency with the rest of
>> the spec.
> +1, will fix.
>> Furthermore, although you added <associate/> and <disassociate/> to the
>> schema definition of <collection>, the elements themselves don't have a
>> schema themselves.
> Oops, I will fix that.
I corrected those errors in version 1.11pre2...
Diff from 1.11pre1 to 1.11.pre:
Diff from 1.10 to 1.11pre2:
>> The change for SHIM looks good to me, too. As I am looking into an HTTP
>> gateway to XMPP pubsub, I am wondering about the names of the headers
>> defined in this spec, though. They are very unlike other headers that
>> registered with the XMPP Registrar and headers used in other protocols
>> (HTTP, mail, news and MIME).
>> RFC 3864 establishes the IANA registry of header fields and includes
>> advice on header field naming. As most of the headers in the SHIM
>> registry just point to their equivalent use in other protocols, I am
>> wondering if we should follow suit and move our registry there, while
>> adjusting the pubsub header fields to comply.
> I try not to bother the IANA more than necessary. However I will think
> about this. Is anyone actively using the headers yet? Will we break
> backwards-compatibility if we modify the header names now?
Do you have examples of how you'd like the header names to change?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards