[Standards] Divergence between XEP-0048 and XEP-0223

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Jun 9 16:42:09 UTC 2010


On Wed Jun  9 16:10:38 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/5/10 9:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Peter Saint-Andre  
> <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> > I don't think new profiles of PubSub are particularly nasty -  
> forcing
> > anything more into XEP-0060 is something to be avoided at all  
> costs,
> > but profiles and extensions seem fine.
> 
> Some new profiles might require new features in XEP-0060 (as, for
> instance, PEP required presence-based delivery and notification
> filtering). But we can fight over which features go in which specs.
> 
> 
I'd like to keep a clear distinction between features - which are  
low-level, and need actual code added everywhere - and profiles,  
which assemble these features into a useful service.

It's entirely logical - and obvious - that profiles get a XEP all of  
their own. It's less obvious that we should avoid defining features  
in them, but I think it's important for distinguishing between PEP,  
222, and 223 - all make use of the "pubsub-onna-jid" feature in  
different ways.

In all cases, features should be either "part of the core", meaning  
that they're expected from any implementation of PubSub - ie, any  
implementation of XEP-0060, including those for a specific profile,  
like PEP - or else the features are truly optional, perhaps in  
support of some profile like PEP, or 22[23]. Still, implementing this  
feature alone doesn't mean you support PEP, or 222, or 223.

So it'd be interesting to consider removing various optional features  
from XEP-0060, such that XEP-0060 became a pure core, then defining a  
"Pubsub onna jid" XEP to hold those features, and (perhaps) so on.

Certainly, it feels like an exercise that's worth thinking about,  
even if we decide it's not worth doing.

> For the record, I'm quite open to new profiles of pubsub, starting  
> with
> a storage profile so that we can clean up XEPs 222 and 223.

Curiously, the profile we've never defined, yet do use and talk about  
a lot, is the case of pubsub-onna-dedicated-domain. I'm pretty sure  
everyone will disagree, and say "Of course we have! It's just ..." -  
but the details may well differ.

I think it'd be very interesting to define what to expect from a  
pubsub.example.net service.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list