[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Mar 28 17:30:34 UTC 2018


On 28.03.2018 13:37, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2018, at 17:29, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>> 3. Is the text of XEP-0122 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.
> 
> I think the SHOULD on using namespace prefixes is probably ill-advised (can the people who say they’ve implemented 122 confirm that they do this?).
If you mean

"""
implementations sending the form using prefixes SHOULD use the namespace
prefix "xdv", and SHOULD declare the namespace prefix mapping in the
ancestor <x xmlns='jabber:x:data'/> element
"""

then no, Smack does not do this. I don't think the normative 'SHOULD' is
necessary here.

Note that Smack will handle namespace prefixes just fine when receiving
forms. I just double checked and wrote a short unit test for it (and
discovered https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/617 doing so). I find
namespace prefixes useful and don't believe that the XMPP world would
stop turning if they where more widely used. They are handy in certain
situations like extending an already specified element by an additional
attribute.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180328/4479f1ef/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list