[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata

Christian Schudt christian.schudt at gmx.de
Thu Mar 22 22:31:33 UTC 2018


> 1. What software has XEP-0131 implemented? Please note that the
> protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at
> least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to
> advance from Draft to Final.

https://bitbucket.org/sco0ter/babbler/src/0.7.5/xmpp-extensions/src/main/java/rocks/xmpp/extensions/shim/model/


> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
> defined in XEP-0131? If so, please describe the problems and, if
> possible, suggested solutions.

No.

Also note: It’s referenced by PubSub and XEP-0149: Time Periods.

> 3. Is the text of XEP-0131 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate?
> Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
> suggestions you have for improving the text.

It’s a very generic container for key-value-pairs. Maybe a bit too generic, so that it’s hard to establish a common ground between implementations.
It’s more useful in closed systems.

Example 8 surprises, because it unexpectedly messes with the XML schema of XEP-0030 by including headers in it.
It hardly stands out, but requires modifications of an XEP-0030 implementation.
One would expect to maybe use Service Discovery Extensions for this or nothing at all (Entity Caps are sufficient).

Generally there are so many headers specified, like „RFC2822Date“, „Subject“, "Transfer-Encoding“, taken from HTTP, which are not useful in XMPP.

I don’t think any client would care about the „Store“ == false header, at least the sender cannot rely that the receiver really won’t store anything so it’s not very useful.

— Christian


More information about the Standards mailing list