[Standards] XEP-0280: <private/> vs. <no-copy/>

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Sep 29 16:12:43 UTC 2015


On 29 September 2015 at 16:02, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> On 17.09.2015 13:31, Christian Schudt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >> I get your point. But it feels wrong to define nearly identical
> >> extension elements in two XEPs. The author of xep334, Matthew Wild,
> >> already expressed his willingness to change xep334 so that it can be
> >> re-used in xep280. Therefore I'm all for changing xep334, then issue a
> >> last call for it, ideally advance it to draft, then issue another last
> >> call for a xep280 version using xep334 elements, and finally advance it
> >> to draft.
> >
> > Speaking of reusing: Why not just re-use XEP-0079 here?
>
> Good point. After reviewing AMP (xep79), it appears to be well designed
> in a modular fashion. This would mean that server developers wouldn't
> need to implement all of it, just the required parts to achieve what
> xep334 does. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html#description-match-resource
> >
> > action="drop" value="other" should do the same as <no-copy/> or
> <private/>.
> >
> > In general XEP-0334 seems to have overlapping parts with XEP-0079, e.g.
> <no-store/> vs.
> > action="drop" value="stored".
> >
> > Actually I am in favor for not having two XEPs with the same use cases.
>
> While I was first an advocate for using xep334 in xep280, it appears
> that using xep79 provides a good alternative.
>
> I've heard multiple times, including from one of the authors of AMP,
> that AMP was a mistake. Could somebody elaborate on that? What is wrong
> with it? I knew it existed, but didn't discovered until now that it's
> modular (see Example 4). Hence the usual flaw of large specifications,
> that you potentially need to implement all of it just to get a certain
> feature, doesn't apply.
>

Yes, just like XEP-0060.

XEP-0334 is advisory, XEP-0079 is mandatory. But worse, XEP-0079 has all
manner of combinations - every time an action is added, every value
supported must be checked.

XEP-0334 managed to accomplish every useful use-case from '79 with
considerably less complexity.

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150929/bfe13c1e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list