[Standards] [XEP-0385] Some Questions

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue Dec 5 10:42:23 UTC 2017

2017-12-05 11:32 GMT+01:00 Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> 2017-12-05 9:16 GMT+01:00 Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com>:
>> > You can happily do so without implementing the whole Jingle File
>> > Transfer
>> > XEP, you simply need to support parsing/serialization of the Jingle FT
>> > file
>> > element, which is there simply for the metadata. IMO it does not make
>> > much
>> > sense to duplicate this element again in every XEP that uses it.
>> If that's true I find the wording »Thus a client supporting this XEP
>> MUST implement Jingle File Transfer (XEP-0234) [2] and HTTP File
>> Upload (XEP-0363) [4].« confusing to say the least.
> Yes. This is for improved interoperability, but not just because we use the
> Jingle FT file element.
>> Also I noticed that thumbnails use BOB as a transfer method. I wonder
>> how this goes along with the statelessness premise of the XEP.
> According to https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0231.html#exchange :
>> If the data to be shared is particularly small (e.g., less than 1k), then
>> the sender MAY send it directly by including a <data/> element directly in a
>> <message/>, <presence/>, or <iq/> stanza.
> So, if the SIMS message contains the data element for the thumbnail, the
> SIMS message with the thumbnail remains stateless.

If embedding the thumbnail directly into the message is the default
mode - or how the XEP is supposed to work - maybe the wording and the
examples should reflect that.

Have you seen a 1KiB PNG image though?


More information about the Standards mailing list