[Standards] Partial data forms

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 01:11:04 UTC 2012


On 25 July 2012 01:50, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 7/24/12 8:35 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On 24 July 2012 14:58, Tuomas Koski <koski.tuomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Howdy folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted
>>>>> data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see three options:
>>>>>
>>>>>  1) Reject the form
>>>>>  2) Keep the current value for missing fields
>>>>>  3) Use the default value for missing fields
>>>>
>>>> (2) seems to be the sensible thing to do.
>>>
>>> +1 for option "2) Keep the current value for missing fields".
>>>
>>
>> Then it seems to be something we should clarify in XEP-0045 at least.
>
> I've always thought that #2 was the right approach, but I agree that we
> might not have made that perfectly clear in XEP-0004 and the specs that
> use data forms.

Great. I didn't think consensus would be so easy :)

Time to allow this in Prosody then...

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list