[Standards] MIX (XEP-0369) post-summit update to 0.8
jonas at wielicki.name
Mon Feb 20 06:23:34 UTC 2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Montag, 20. Februar 2017 03:32:37 CET Steve Kille wrote:
> Thanks for the responses.
Thanks for taking care of them. For the record, MIX already reads a lot better
to me than half a year ago when I first took a (very brief) look into it :-).
> > § 6.1.2 and also § 6.1.3: I don’t quite understand the roster management
> > at
> > place there yet. There is (in § 6.1.2):
> > > As part of the channel joining process, the user's server MAY add the
> > > MIX
> > > channel to the user's roster using standard XMPP to update the roster.
> [Steve Kille]
> I see this as a clear statement of what is going on. What is unclear about
I was combining a few quotes and formulating a question on all of those later
on, which you answered. No worries.
> > Is the usage of XEP-0004 in Example 64 (§ 6.5.2) and also earlier in
> > Example 7 valid? XEP-0004 states: "If the <field/> element type is
> > anything other than "fixed" (see below), it MUST possess a 'var'
> > attribute that uniquely identifies the field in the context of the form
> > (if it is "fixed", it MAY possess a 'var' attribute).". This sounds as if
> > no two fields may have the same @var, which is clearly violated in the
> > examples. Those should be jid- multi fields with multiple <value/>s,
> > right?
> [Steve Kille]
> The repeated field is jid-multi. Surely you can just repeat this? I
> can't see otherwise how jid-multi wold be encoded. Have I missed
> something here?
The correct way to encode multiple jid-multi values is:
<field var="foo" type="jid-multi">
<value>ab at cd.e</value>
<value>fg at hi.j</value>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards