[Standards] Nonzas: What are they and do we need them?

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Mon Apr 20 18:45:45 UTC 2015

On 20.04.2015 18:22, Christian Schudt wrote:
>> For me personally, the contra-Nonza arguments did not convince me. It
>> appears that nothing in the specification prevents you from using Nonzas
>> after resource binding with BOSH. XEP-206 3. only says "SHOULD contain".
>> I also don't see why they would introduce "a bunch of conceptual and
>> implementations problems".
> I agree with you. The contra arguments are weak. I think Prosody even advertises XEP-0198 over BOSH, so clients would use it. And I also see no implementation problems.

Not sure what prosody is doing and it's slightly unrelated to the Nonza
discussion, but I want to point out that it makes no sense to use xep198
SM over BOSH.

> Oh and I'd prefer to just call them (top-level) XML elements, or Stream elements. Nonza sounds really weird. There's no need to invent a new name, imo.

That's ambiguous: Stanza are also (top-level) XML elements and Stream
elements [1]. That's the main motivation behind defining a term for
them: Removing ambiguity (when discussing things, when specifying
protocols, …).

- Florian

1: An accurate specification for stanza would be: "A top-level XML
element of a XMPP Stream which tag name is either 'message', 'iq' or
'presence' qualified by either the 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server'

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150420/719192d6/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list