[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Dec 11 15:34:52 UTC 2017


On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:31, Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>>>> 84 is listed as N/A for server, but I think it’s possible for a server
>>>> satisfying its requirements to not meet the requirements of 84 (someone
>>>> tell me if I’m wrong).
>>> 
>>> What requirements? That definitely sounds like a problem if so.
>> 
>> It needs multiple items per node, doesn’t it? Maybe I misremember, but we
>> should check.
> 
> No, that’s not true. I think that’s something some folks (including me) wanted 
> to go for, but it’s a slow progress of updating specs (see the most-recent 
> XEP-0060 update) and implementations (particularly the PubSub side of things).

I’m not sure you’re right :)
84 allows you to publish multiple versions of an avatar, each of which goes to its own item within the node, which would require multiple items. At least, that’s my reading of it.

>>>> I’m not sure about listing resumption as needed for IM - as discussed
>>>> earlier in the MUC I don’t think it’s the real solution to that problem,
>>>> but it’s not a hill for me to die on.
>>> 
>>> I disagree; this is essential for a good mobile experience.
>> 
>> I was noting about the IM table, not the Mobile table (I think the same is
>> true for mobile that it’s not the /right/ solution, but I think it’s the
>> best we’ve currently got).
> 
> I’m pretty sure that resumption isn’t going to go away, even in the long term. 
> I wouldn’t want to have a storm of inbound presence and PEP 
> (on_sub_and_presence) notifications on each failover on mobile. (The 
> discussion in the MUC, if we’re thinking about the same, mostly concerned 
> messages.)
> 
> But this is probably a discussion for another time, and not for this LC.

Yes.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list