[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Events

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Fri Sep 30 20:04:21 UTC 2022


Le vendredi 30 septembre 2022, 13:35:17 CEST Maxime Buquet a écrit :
> Thanks Jonas!
> 
> Thanks Goffi!
> I have skimmed over the spec, and here are a few comments that shouldn't
> pose any issue for the move to experimental.

Hi Pep,

> 
> > § 5. Events Nodes
> > [..]
> > Otherwise, a node may be published on any pubsub service. An events node
> > SHOULD be prefixed with 'urn:xmpp:events:0/', which SHOULD be followed
> > by an unique identifier.
> 
> I suggest using XEP-0462[0] (PubSub Type Filtering) instead, as it's
> exactly what it is here to do. Fill in `pubsub#type` with
> `urn:xmpp:events:0` and use an opaque unique identifier as a node name.

yes that make sense. I keep that in mind for a future update with other spec 
changes if the protoXEP is accepted, as it would mean a namespace bump.


> 
> I would also argue this should be used for nodes on PEP, but I agree
> advantages are less obvious when node name equals ns.

we need a well-known node name in the case of PEP for the personal agenda 
(nothing prevent to have other agendas on PEP with different nodes though, e.g. 
professional meetings).

 
> > § 6.4.1
> > If the online location is on an XMPP MUC, an <x/> element qualified by
> > the 'jabber:x:conference' namespace as described in Direct MUC
> > Invitations (XEP-0249) can be used.
> 
> Shouldn't this “can” be a MAY or SHOULD instead? in case of a MUC.
> I wonder how else the information that it is a MUC would be transmitted,
> as I only see elements to describe HTTP addresses.

yes indeed, a MUST seems more adapted.

> I understand your main use-case is to convert from AP, which happens in
> the HTTP world, but maybe there should be a way to add a URI instead of
> just a URL?

Actually I've been experimenting events even since before ActivityPub is a 
thing, the AP gateway and Mobilizon compatibility has just helped to validate 
the model.

About URI, the proposal is actually using XEP-0103, do you think it's not 
sufficient? What else would you suggest?

> 
> > § 6.5
> > The <rsvp> element MUST contain form as specified in Data Forms
> > (XEP-0004)
> 
> “a form”. It's obvious in the sentence below that it's a single form,
> but this one is ambiguous.

It's a typo, thanks


> 
> > Example: Romeo Submit his RSVP Answer
> > <value>>urn:xmpp:events:rsvp:0</value>
> 
> Contains an additional ">".

typo again, thanks

> 
> That's it.
> Thanks a lot for the work on the AP gateway!

Thanks for your interest and the feedback!

King regards
Goffi




More information about the Standards mailing list