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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet peter at andyet.net
Mon Apr 20 19:44:09 UTC 2015

On 4/20/15 12:45 PM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> 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'
> namespace."

What a coincidence, that's exactly how it's defined in RFC 6210. ;-)



More information about the Standards mailing list