[Standards] XEP-0235: data forms?

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Mon Mar 31 10:38:05 UTC 2008


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?


> 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,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org
Use XMPP!





More information about the Standards mailing list