[Standards] Bookmarks 2 extensibility

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Nov 25 14:32:26 UTC 2019


On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:25, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 14:19, Evgeny <xramtsov at gmail.com <mailto:xramtsov at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:17 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net <mailto:dave at cridland.net>> 
> wrote:
> > If you're saying we shouldn't have arbitrary namespaced data in such 
> > places, I disagree.
> 
> Yes, I see that we disagree. Dead end like always.
> 
> OK, but I'm trying to understand why.
> 
> We put arbitrary namespaced data inside messages and other stanzas all the time to no ill effect. Why is putting it inside PEP data items so different?

I think it /is/ different, FWIW. As a server I expect to have to pass-through unknown data. As a client I can safely ignore content in almost all cases, and drop it at parse time, but in this case I would need to not ignore it but maintain it for re-serialisation.

I think making it explicit that this is an expectation for particular children of BM2 is quite sensible. Expecting clients to do it at arbitrary locations unbidden would be at best optimistic.

/K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20191125/d12450a4/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list