[Standards] XEP-0235: data forms?
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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards