[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Jonas Wielicki jonas at wielicki.name
Sun Mar 18 17:56:48 UTC 2018


On Sonntag, 18. März 2018 18:48:49 CET Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> Having implemented 0048 via 0223 earlier this week, I can only applaud an
> effort of making the documentation easier to digest. Thanks for this!
> 
> I am, however not sold on the idea of having a bookmark-per-item: what
> problem is that solving, or what benefit does this give us?

Two or more clients updating different bookmarks at the same time (or maybe at 
different times, but one had a network outage inbetween and can only actually 
perform the update at a later time). Currently, it requires a nasty loop [1] 
until convergence to make that work.

> I appreciate
> how it fits in nicely with the way how pubsub is designed - but in
> practice, I suspect that one would easily work with entire sets of
> bookmarks anyways. By not splitting up the bookmarks, we wouldn't need a
> new namespace, and we can re-use the existing 0048/0049 data structure.
> That will improve interoperability, and make adoption easier.

We’ve been advocating this (split into items) move for quite a while and we’re 
happy to see that it’s happening now.

> Unrelated: I'd like the XEP to have a "complete" example of a bookmark, one
> that includes the room JID. Although the text is clear, having an example
> like that will be a useful illustration.

The text doesn’t seem to be that clear then; the idea is that the JID is in 
the pubsub item ID (§ 4.1) -- which also has the nice sideeffect of resolving 
the ambiguities which arise when multiple bookmarks for the same room with 
different nicknames exist.

kind regards,
Jonas

   [1]: https://github.com/horazont/aioxmpp/blob/devel/aioxmpp/bookmarks/
service.py#L416

> 
> On 18 March 2018 at 16:25, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> > Looks great, thanks Dave and JC!
> > 
> > The only feedback I'd like to give is that the password field should be
> > removed. If use of the password field is not recommended, why have it? It
> > seems perfectly fine to say that you can't autojoin password protected
> > MUCs
> > without a prompt or that individual clients must store the password (so
> > you'd have to log in once on each client the first time it fetches the
> > bookmarks and joins the room).
> > 
> > —Sam
> > 
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, at 08:34, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> > > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> > > 
> > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)
> > > Abstract:
> > > This specification defines a syntax and storage profile for keeping a
> > > list of chatroom bookmarks on the server.
> > > 
> > > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bookmarks2.html
> > > 
> > > The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
> > > proposal as an official XEP.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Standards mailing list
> > > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> > > Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > --
> > Sam Whited
> > sam at samwhited.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards mailing list
> > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> > Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> > _______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180318/43e98f42/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list