[Standards] XEP-0223: Clarification

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu Jun 22 20:02:26 UTC 2017

If you take a look at example 13 of XEP-0357 there is a
publish-options form field called secret which probably counts as an
example of 'meta-data'.
If that XEP wouldn't register that form field a pub service that
advertises publish-options would reject it. (Nobody forces the App
server to do in fact advertise publish-options. And tbh honest it is
highly questionable why push notifications even use pubsub syntax but
that's a discussion for another day)

2017-06-22 21:52 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de>:
> 2017-06-22 21:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>> On 22 June 2017 at 20:23, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>> I went ahead and created a PR reflecting the changes we discussed.
>>> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/481
>>> Rendered version is linked from within the PR.
>> Thanks for this. This seems mostly reasonable, but I'm concerned by
>> per-item metadata which I didn't realise you were thinking of.
>> Could you perhaps give some examples of what you're thinking here? The
>> only metadata I care about at present is security labels, and those
>> (currently) don't have a way of being put in forms.
> This was copy pasted from here:
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#registrar-formtypes-publish
> I don't know what metadata means in that context. I'm happy to remove it.
> cheers
> Daniel

More information about the Standards mailing list