On 06/12/2012 05:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/10/12 5:08 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >> On 06/10/2012 04:44 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >>> On 06/08/2012 10:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> I see the following reasons here: >>> 1) some of these fields have more complex types that just a string. For >>> example, atom:title can contain xhtml data and then it has to have a >>> type attribute there, category field can contain attributes term, scheme >>> and label, and so on. >>> 2) We are losing in flexibility very significantly: >>> 2.1) why nodes with not an atom payload should receive these fields when >>> configuring? >>> 2.2) what shall we do if we will faced with the same problem for another >>> payloads? Our configuration form is already very huge. For example, you >>> mentioned XEP-84, why not add fields bytes, id, height, type, width into >>> the form too to avoid extra node as excessive? >> >> Actually, I think that we have now metadata form which can be edited by >> human and we should not mix that with payload specific metadata which >> should not be edited by human. The result will be ugly: form will become >> usefulness for both of these things. So I think we should add some >> sticky item for that and that will be more flexible and clear way. >> >> I really don't think that splitting node into two different nodes >> (payload+metadata) is a good idea because it takes away node's >> information value. Even node with just answers to the post can be read >> as independent node but not a node without metadata. > > OK, well, you could copy XEP-0221 as a start toward the 'xml' field type. :)
I started to do that and then I had a question: what is the level we must correspond to the Atom specification? Can we avoid some things that we have done with the other ways? I mean the atom:updated field which is disturbs me in the blog metadata because it needs to be updated frequently but I don't want to force clients to do that because it will make them more complex and the thing is actually dummy because we have other mechanisms (like instant events and pubsub since) to solve problem that atom:updated solves. So can we avoid atom:updated there? Should we change the namespace if so? Another things that probably can be excluded: 1) atom:title because we have a replacement in the node configuration. But that can hurt if we will import some atom feeds back into pubsub. 2) atom:author because we can use vcard instead of this. But the problem is the same like we have in the first thing. Maybe we can declare that things as optional with a fallback to node metadata values. Actually, I thought about avoiding the xml field at all but I still see some reasons to keep it there: we can use some atom extensions and it's more flexible to put node relations there than make extra node configuration fields. P.S. I start to think that it would be easier to solve questions at real-life meeting because I still have very large amount of problems we didn't discussed yet but we had to have the solutions a long time ago :) > > Peter > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
