[Standards] Example Resources in XEPs (XEP-0369)

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Feb 20 11:54:52 UTC 2017

Hi Flow,

On 20 Feb 2017, at 11:28, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> On 20.02.2017 10:36, Georg Lukas wrote:
>> * Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> [2017-02-20 10:20]:
>>> I feel that using BIND2 resources---albeit this is likely to become the new 
>>> standard---harms readability a lot. However, I can also see that using 
>>> examples which do not fit the current standards lead to developers 
>>> implementing the wrong things, such as clients which encourage the use of 
>>> descriptive and user-chosen resources.
>> I think that we need readable examples in the XEPs over anything else.
>> My suggestion would be to use human-readable, short resource
>> identifiers, both in the client case and in the auto-generated proxy
>> case. It is possible to convey the same information in another, indirect
>> way, that does not harm understanding:
>> For example:
>> The full user JID "alice at xmpp.example/client1-uuid" is mapped to the
>> proxy JID "channel+alice-uuid at mix/uuid-alice-A"
> Please let us have the client provided part first and *then* the UUID. I
> believe this would increase the readability a lot. For example

The client provided part *is* a UUID. The client part needs to be unpredictable (although consistent).

The server part can be whatever, there’s no need for that to be randomised.

> What was again the envisioned separator used by Bind2 here?



More information about the Standards mailing list