[Standards] XEP-0223: Clarification
daniel at gultsch.de
Thu May 25 11:31:32 UTC 2017
2017-05-25 13:20 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
> On 25 May 2017 at 12:16, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> Small clarification on my own wording:
>> 2017-05-16 19:07 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de>:
>>> - If a certain form field is registered with the registry  all
>>> server implementations MUST behave according to the specification in
>> This should read:
>> If a certain form field is registered with the registry  AND the
>> pubsub services announces #publish-options as a feature all server
>> implementations MUST behave according to the specification in .
>> The reason I want this to be cleared up either on this list or even
>> better in section 7.1.5 of XEP-0060 is that this has the potential to
>> save me a lot of round trips when regularly publishing items to pubsub
>> nodes with a specific access model.
>> Without it I would have to explicitly configure the node every time
>> before I post an item. On the other hand if my assumptions are correct
>> I can publish items on a whim, having the server reject the
>> publication if the access model doesn't match and only in that
>> (probably rare case) configure the node and republish the item.
> 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.
Yes. If a certain publish-option is registered I want the server to
treat as either a a precondition, override or metadata depending on
what is described in the registry.
> b) The publish option is not known to the server, in which case the
> publish is rejected.
In general I do not care how the server handles unregistered options.
However since the list of registered options can grow without the
server knowing about it I guess having the server reject every unknown
option is a consequence of (a).
More information about the Standards