[Standards] naming of top elements in IQs
mwild1 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 08:45:07 UTC 2015
On 27 February 2015 at 08:28, Hund, Johannes <johannes.hund at siemens.com> wrote:
> this question comes from a recent discussion we had internally.
> We try to identify a best practice/convention when designing several somewhat-related extensions, specifically the naming of top-level elements in IQs.
> It is noticeable that older, core-related XEPs (roster, disco etc.) use the convention of elementName "query" and namespace according to extension protocol.
Yes, <query/> is historic.
> There was also the query action XEP-0099 which described a CRUD-pattern on IQ-query, but got deferred.
> It feels a bit odd to have a IQ set named "query", but apart from that, it helps to expect what you get in implementing.
> I have seen some implementations that offer comfort accessors to this pattern (think it was strophe).
I think any API that assumes the payload tag name is "query" is quite
wrong. Something like IQ(type, namespace, tag) would be sensible.
> Newer XEPs seem to use one top-element name according to protocol (pubsub, si, jingle) and have sub-elements in own namespaces that deal with specific aspects.
These protocols all commonly have multiple child elements within the
parent tag, which is one reason for them being how they are. But
again, I think this pattern is not as favourable nowadays.
> Also you see that some protocol extensions use several top-elements with the same namespace rather than a singular one, diverging the aspect on the element name.
I think this is the approach most modern XEPs take. The resultant
stanzas are more compact.
> One could also design protocol extensions that use different elements and namespaces individually for its use case.
> All is valid XML and XMPP and seemingly used.
> The Guidelines in XEP-0134 and XEP-143 do not cover this.
> The thought is:
> Would it make sense to give some guideline/convention on how to design the schema, e.g. to name the payload child of an IQ, when to use a different namespace etc.?
I think some guidelines wouldn't be a bad thing for new XEP authors.
> It could potentially make things more uniform, thus additionally allowing helper functions in implementations and increase reuse?
> Of course you could still vary from that convention, if you have some reason to do so.
More information about the Standards