[Standards] Microblogging: XEP-0277 and beyond
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?
>>> 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
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.
With best regards,
XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
More information about the Standards