Niklas Gustavsson wrote: >> I cannot emphasize enough that the examples are not normative. In fact, > they often contain errors. > > Agreed, but when other hints are missing, it's the best we got I guess. > > >> The entity that generates an error stanza SHOULD include the >> original XML sent so that the sender can inspect and, if >> necessary, correct the XML before attempting to resend. > > Yeah, I read this as well as also makes the interpretation that we > should include the complete stanza, but examples seems to contradict > that.
What kind of contradiction is it? (I must admit, my mental svn up failed when I wanted to get me to HEAD on this discussion.) All examples I see are completely without error echos. I didn't find a single example for an error stanza containing the whole or only a part of the original. Can you point me to one? > >> What would be our motivation to change this behaviour? > > For one, Smack can not handle our current error stanzas as showed by > the integration tests I've written for XMPP Ping (not yet committed > since they do not currently pass). In these, when sending an error, > Smack will not be able to locate the <error> element. Why would Smack try and locate it? What happens if it can't? Does it > One can probably > argue that this is a bug in Smack, but given the examples in both the > RFC and the XMPP Ping spec, I would lean on the problem being with us > :-) Probably. :-) At xsf.org, there are two lists, [email protected] and [email protected] which coul prove helpful if we are in doubt. Bernd
