[Standards] XEP-0223: Clarification

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Fri Jun 2 08:36:01 UTC 2017


2017-06-02 10:19 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
> On 2 June 2017 at 09:14, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> 2017-05-25 13:20 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>>> So you want the outcome to be:
>>>
>>> a) The publish option is known to the server, in which case it is
>>> treated as a precondition or override as given in the registry.
>>> b) The publish option is not known to the server, in which case the
>>> publish is rejected.
>>>
>>> Does that seem about right?
>>
>> I didn't take that as an agreement. I thought it was just a
>> clarification regarding my question.
>>
>
> Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Yes, that was a proposal that i
> thought matched your aims.
>
>> But if it was indeed an agreement (and nobody else objects) I guess I
>> can write up a paragraph for XEP-0060.
>
> I think that's the ideal first step, yes.
>
> I would be curious to explore if it would be worthwhile extracting
> publish options out into a distinct XEP; this would perhaps depend on
> whether we were going to have to add a feature for this new?
> behaviour.


Is this new behavior? My original question was 'Is this was
#publish-options does?' if not how else is #publish-options supposed
to behave?

IMHO this is the only logical behavior of the already existing
#publish-options (that's not implemented anywhere?) Otherwise I don't
think #publish-options servers any purpose at all. I can't request a
list of available publish-options from the server. And even if I could
if the behavior is not standardized am I supposed to display the form
data to the user?


More information about the Standards mailing list