[Standards] Commenting: XEP-0277 and XEP-0303

Jaussoin Timothée edhelas at gmail.com
Wed Dec 4 07:35:17 UTC 2013


Le 13/11/2013 18:54, Goffi a écrit :
> G'day,
>
> Sorry for the delay between my answers.
>
> I'm now working full time on my project ( http://sat.goffi.org ) which 
> make intensive use of pubsub and microblogging (see the demo at 
> http://www.libervia.org ).
>
> ok, now for the questions/remarks:
>
> First I'm implementing XHTML for microblogging in my client, but in 
> the XEP-0277 §2.3 it's say to send two "content" elements, one with 
> text type and the other one with "xhtml" type. In the example 2 only a 
> atom:title element is used with xhtml, and there is no text content. 
> In RFC 4287 it's said that there must be exactly one atom:title element.
>
> So is it possible to clarify the situation and fix example 2 
> accordingly ? How to handle xhtml title/content, and how to post both 
> text and xhtml content ?
>
>> 3. Blogs or microblogs? I already mentioned that I think that the
>> difference between blogs and microblogs is too artificial. We already
>> have some features in XEP-277 which are traditionallyб═ not concern to
>> microblogs. But I really consider that there is no reason to divide
>> these things into a different specs. Maybe it will be useful to divide
>> more general XEP and then define two different namespaces (i.e. node
>> names in terms of PEP) for blogs and microblogs with some
>> recommendations (i.e. best practices) for both
>
> I actually agree that XEP-0277 is enough for blogs and microblogs. In 
> practice, I think the only main difference between the 2 (except the 
> artificial lenght limit), is that there is a « title » for blogs and 
> not for microblogs. As XEP-0277 use atom:title for posting the 
> microblog (as it is a mandatory elment, and content is not), it can 
> lead to confusions for the client, maybe we can use the presence of 
> atom:content element to know if we have a blog or microblog item ? 
> Maybe a different namespace as you suggested ?
>
> Also, XEP-0277 §2.3.1 suggest to restrict to XHTML-IM, I think it's a 
> bad idea for (micro)blogging content, as XHTML-IM is really restricted 
> (e.g.: no definition lists): that's ok for instant messaging, but full 
> featured blog engine need a lot more.
>
>
>> 4. Quality of current pubsub implementations is poor. I think that the
>> reason of it is that current application level protocols that based on
>> pubsub are too simple and doesn't consume all the power of pubsub.
>> [SNIP]
>
> I agree, that why we have started our own pubsub implementation as an 
> external component. But we need some change on remote-roster 
> (XEP-0321), I'll discuss this in a separate message.
>
> Cheers
> Goffi
>
>
>
> On 10/04/2013 07:52, Sergey Dobrov wrote:> [SNIP]
>
Hi !

I'd like to up this thread. We really need a serious discussion on 
Pubsub/PEP/Microblogging. Me (for Movim), Goffi and Sergey are 
implementing theses XEPs in our respective clients and I think that our 
feedbacks are usefull.

For my own project, I really need a fresh and clean XEP for the comments 
(the XEP-0277 is not really clear). I also approve the Sergey feedbacks 
regarding the historic Pubsub XEP.

We need to calm down the XEP acceptance and really review the existing XEP.

Cheers,

edhelas



More information about the Standards mailing list