[Standards] Nonzas: What are they and do we need them?
Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
peter at andyet.net
Mon Apr 20 19:44:39 UTC 2015
On 4/20/15 1:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> 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
>>>> after resource binding with BOSH. XEP-206 3. only says "SHOULD
>>>> 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 . 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'
> What a coincidence, that's exactly how it's defined in RFC 6210. ;-)
6120, that is!
More information about the Standards