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

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Wed Nov 13 17:54:14 UTC 2013


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.


On 10/04/2013 07:52, Sergey Dobrov wrote:> [SNIP]

More information about the Standards mailing list