[Standards] Section 2.3 of XEP-0107
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Feb 11 20:34:36 UTC 2009
On 2008-11-09 11:05, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> In Gajim, this diff was recently committed:
> That lead to a discussion in the Gajim team whether that is right.
> Section 2.3 of XEP-0107 says:
> “A user MAY provide a mood extension in a specific message in order to
> lend a defined emotional tone to the text.”
> To me, this sounds like you can attach a mood to a single message so
> that the receiving client can present that to the user together with the
> message somehow, not replacing the global mood set - which, honestly,
> sounds pretty useless to me.
> But on the other side, the Gajim diff uses this to attach the mood to
> every message sent when PEP is not supported, showing it as the global
> mood when received and replacing a mood received via PEP, if any was
> To me, this sounds wrong.
> All this brings me to the question:
> Is Section 2.3 useful or should it be removed? I personally don't think
> it should be used as a workaround if the server doesn't support PEP, as
> that's unwanted traffic (attached to every message, even sending when
> the receiving entitiy doesn't support moods etc.). If it wasn't meant as
> a workaround if the server doesn't support PEP, I wonder if it should be
> removed so it won't be abused for that purpose, as its use if used like
> I understood is questionable.
The ability to send a mood along with a regular message was definitely
not to be used as a replacement of PEP, when PEP is not available.
XEP-0107, like many other extended presence specifications, specifies a
data format *and* possible ways to use this data format to exchange
information. In this case, to convey a mood.
Sending along a mood with a message might indicate a feeling about that
particular conversation, which does not necessarily affect the mood the
user wants to share with all of his contacts.
If Gajim implements sending along moods in messages, for the sole
purpose of replacing PEP, I would consider that a bug. It goes against
the very reason we started to define our publish-subscribe
More information about the Standards