[Standards] XEP-0235: data forms?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sun Mar 30 23:04:46 UTC 2008

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). 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 ;))

Right, that's when we use data forms. But an authorization token is a
small, atomic data unit, so I think it's best to use "nice semantic XML"
in this case.


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/20080330/25e2f817/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list