[Standards] XEP-0223: Clarification

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 22 20:22:59 UTC 2017

On 22 June 2017 at 21:02, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> 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'.
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html
> 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)

Good spot. Yes, publishing metadata rather than item metadata, then.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________

More information about the Standards mailing list