[Standards] XEP-0301 Annual review (In-Band Real Time Text)

Mark Rejhon markybox at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 20:44:02 UTC 2015


Re: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html
Infopage: http://www.realjabber.org

I am doing an annual review of XEP-0301 adoption status.  Last year, no
change was deemed necessary. However, one developer submitted an errata,
which I am now confirming with XSF.

New implementations:
- jabber-el (emacs jabber)
- Babbler XMPP library
(Positive developer experience
http://babbler-xmpp.blogspot.de/2015/07/xmpp-real-time-text-in-action.html
"XMPP
Real-time Text is definitively one of the most fun XMPP extension out
there, from user's point of view as well as from a developer's point of
view!")

Observations:
- I personally asked each developer about their XEP-0301 experience.
Generally the standard is well received when developers get over their
fears of the size of the standard.  The main showstopper is UI integration,
rather than the spec itself.  The pidgin authors also recently currently
has a BountySource reward pot (250) for XEP-0301 support for Pidgin.

Pending cosmetic XEP-0301 errata:
- There is this pending cosmetic errata, that we wish to confirm with XSF
members:

Christian Schudt (of Babbler) says of XEP-0301:

>2. The XML Schema might be wrong, but I am not sure.
>
> <xs:sequence>
>         <xs:element ref='t' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>         <xs:element ref='e' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>         <xs:element ref='w' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>       </xs:sequence>
>
> I think this schema suggests elements to be in this exact sequence, e.g.
> <t/><t/><t/><e/><e/><w/>
>
> I think a <xs:choice> is missing somewhere, something like:
>
> <xs:sequence>
> <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'>
>         <xs:element ref='t'/>
>         <xs:element ref='e'/>
>         <xs:element ref='w'/>
> </xs:choice>
> </xs:sequence>
>
> But I am not sure about it.

If we fix the schema, would this force namespace to increment:
i.e. urn:xmpp:rtt:1 instead of urn:xmpp:rtt:0

My commentary: All developers have complied with the assumed latter schema,
since it was obvious from the rest of the spec.  All existing XEP-0301
implementations comply with the latter schema.  Therefore, implementations
have correctly implied the correct usage.  Thus, I don't think namespace
should need to increment.

Comments?

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150929/055628cb/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list