[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Maxime Buquet pep at bouah.net
Mon Feb 3 13:56:27 UTC 2020

On 2020/02/03, Maxime Buquet wrote:
> > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> > why not?
> I have not implemented it yet, but I would.
> As this spec allows to handle bookmarks separately, it's easier to
> handle group/Enterprise(tm) bookmarks. The server can return an
> appropriate answer for a specific bookmark and not reject an update on
> the whole list without any hint.
> I also don't understand why the password field has been removed, same as
> lovetox. While I might agree with a push towards using MUC member-only
> rooms (I would think that's the intent?), I don't think we're there yet.
> Password-MUCs are still a reality, and also still used in transports.
> While a password field could be added to the XEP, I'm curious if
> anything happened around the issue Link Mauve raised a few weeks ago
> about allowing for a extensions in the XEP? This would avoid having to
> rewrite an entire bookmark XEP everytime we think about a new feature.

I forgot to add that the "autojoin" attribute is likely going to
conflict with 0430 Inbox' features. Which one should I respect if I
implement both XEPs?

As Dave authored both it might be interesting to sync up on that.

Maxime “pep” Buquet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200203/497978c9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list