[Standards] XEP-0313 limit vs max

Phil.Scala at thomsonreuters.com Phil.Scala at thomsonreuters.com
Fri Aug 10 12:39:12 UTC 2012


Apologies, if this has been discussed already.

I was reviewing the experimental XEP-0313 - Message Archive Management, and I believe the element <limit> as defined in section 4.1.3 should actually be <max>.



4.1.3 Limiting results

Finally, in order for the client or server to limit the number of results transmitted at a time a server MUST support Result Set Management [4] and SHOULD support the paging mechanism defined therein. A client MAY include a <set/> element in its query.

For the purposes of this protocol, the UIDs used by RSM correspond with the UIDs of the stanzas stored in the archive.

Example 5. A query using Result Set Management

<iq type='get' id='q29302'>
  <query xmlns='urn:xmpp:mam:tmp'>
      <start>2010-08-07T00:00:00Z</start>
      <set xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/rsm'>
         <limit>10</limit>
      </set>
  </query>
</iq>


However when looking at the Result Set Management XEP (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html) the element to limit the number of returned items is shown as <max>

2.1 Limiting the Number of Items

In order to limit the number of items of a result set to be returned, the requesting entity specifies a request type of "set" and the maximum size of the desired subset (via the XML character data of the <max/> element):

Example 1. Requesting a Limit to the Result Set

<iq type='set' from='stpeter at jabber.org/roundabout' to='users.jabber.org' id='limit1'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:search'>
    <nick>Pete</nick>
    <set xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/rsm'>
      <max>10</max>
    </set>
  </query>
</iq>



Is XEP-313 incorrect in using the <limit> element, if so can we correct it to use the <max> element?

Thanks
  Phil

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.



More information about the Standards mailing list