[Standards] microblogging maintainer :)

Thomas Baquet ld.blackfox at gmail.com
Mon Dec 20 16:20:23 UTC 2010


> The trouble with this model is that you're redefining how pubsub works 
> quite radically.
>
> Nodes, currently can be one of two types:
I missed that...
> As such, I'd expect implementations of this to support many items per 
> node, and full access model control to allow (or disallow) replies on 
> the node as needs be. There's really no need to a protocol extension 
> to pubsub to support this.
Perhaps is this the simplest way - delegate the work to the client 
implementation: if the user has a write access on a node, the client has 
to propose to answer to the item. In this case, there is a leaf node for 
each published item. No need of XEP for this, as you told. - On this, 
Floriant was right.

Then, the problem still the "pointer" - user can choose to post the 
reply on his own pubsub, in this case, he must send an pointer item on 
the original item's. So, how do we define the pointer? I began a little 
proposition about this (point 5 of the draft), but still incomplete - 
and, why not, add an attribute to define if is it a reply or a 
"trackball" (like in wordpress), a copy of the original etc. ?

--
Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox)

Jabber ID: ldblackfox at papaya.im
Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox




More information about the Standards mailing list