[Standards] Microblogging: XEP-0277 and beyond

Sergey Dobrov binary at jrudevels.org
Mon Sep 5 06:47:55 UTC 2011


On 09/05/2011 12:17 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Saturday, September 03, 2011 03:07:45 AM Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>> On 09/03/2011 12:41 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
>>> The drawback to node metadata is it does not support update
>>> notifications.  I have the need to track this data, particularly the
>>> conversation title.
>>
>> Don't understand why to change that.
> 
> Don't understand why the title of a conversation might change?
Yup.

> 
>>> Activity makes it much easier to determine what has happened to an item. 
>>> For example, if a moderator edits a comment, this is easily described in
>>> activity terms.  Simply doing complete replacement of comment items is
>>> not terrible but it makes it harder for listeners to figure out what is
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> The main point is the activity node is an append-only changelog, and the
>>> comments node is an up-to-date compilation of that log.
>>
>> That's funny: some earlier you said: "My stance is there is nothing
>> wrong with using a journal to implement pubsub, but ideally pubsub-using
>> protocols should not be so complex that they require a journal-based
>> implementation to participate." And now you talking about inventing the
>> same journal but in specific (non-universal) way and in much more
>> complex manner. Why?
> 
> It's simple: the activity node has optional persistence, hence the journal is 
> optional.
Journal is optional feature anyway. So it's more usable to make it
universal and not force it to depend on an applied protocol, isn't it?

> 
>>> The plan for likes is you'd publish to the activity node ("Justin likes
>>> comment X"), but on the comment node this would be reflected as a
>>> property of an existing comment rather than a new item.  Comment items
>>> could have "like" data stored within them, such as a count and maybe a
>>> list of the last five people to like the comment.
>>
>> I think that all these actions should not be copied from centralized
>> services since that services have more possibilities to control them. I
>> mean, it will be very hard to check if likes are winded by some bad
>> mans. Also it will be hard to represent some statistics of most liked
>> items. So I think that these things should be solved in that manner how
>> google ranking web pages: aggregators will rank items by repost counts
>> or something. And, yes, for user like button should be replaced by
>> "repost" or "repost with comment", I have such functionality in my
>> microblogging service and I want to add it into the XEP-277.
> 
> What do you mean by centralized?  That the conversation is the authority on 
> all of its replies and likes?
Yes, I don't understand what is the reason to have likes in such system
if we can't count them globally and give stats.

> 
> Justin
> 


-- 
With best regards,
Sergey Dobrov,
XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.




More information about the Standards mailing list