Re: [Standards] Bookmarks 2 extensibility

[Florian Schmaus]

On 26.11.19 20:48, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 18:46, Florian Schmaus  > wrote:
> 
> On 25.11.19 14:16, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > As a general rule, I think clients need to try and
> preserve unknown XML
> > nodes in data they manipulate. This goes for PEP data, roster
> data, and
> > all sorts.
> 
> I don't share that sentiment. Clearly XMPP entities need to simply
> ignore unknown extension elements if they are just consuming them. But
> in cases where entities are modifying elements, like roster data,
> demanding that they have to replay also all unknown extension elements
> is, among other things, dangerous: One rotten apple could destroy the
> whole batch. That is, one misbehaving client could ruin everything. That
> is why I hope that we will never put extension elements in roster
> s that the client needs to replay [1].
> 
> In such cases I instead favour the approach Emmanuel suggests: clearly
> define extension points and explicitly state the requirement to
> handle/preserve unknown XML in the specification.
> 
> 
> OK - I disagree, but I also think this is an acceptable compromise.
> 
> Should server-generated metadata also have a container element, so that
> clients know it can be ignored and must not be replayed?
> 
> Should these elements be generic elements, common across all cases, or
> do we make them individually each time?

Good questions. I do not have a strong opinion regarding the answer.
Mostly because I can not come up with an example or reason that
demonstrates that there is value in having a generic element or a
container element for server-generated metadata. That does not mean that
such a thing does not exists though.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Resurrecting Reactions

[Florian Schmaus]

On 03.12.19 21:50, Marvin W wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'd like to resurrect the Reactions topic.
> 
> 3. The ProtoXEP doesn't use a generic way to reference the message that
> is reacted on. However it was agreed that no proper way to do so
> generically existed until then. As a follow-up, the Fastening XEP-0422
> was proposed, with the intention to do some generic referencing thing.
> On this list, this XEP received some critique [3] from me and others
> that were not addressed yet and make it unclear to me how to correctly
> implement Reactions on top of it in various use-cases (updating
> reactions, encryption).

AFAIKT it was at least you and me who gave feedback on fastening 3
months ago. Sadly from this point everything regarding the development
of the fastening XEP came to an halt. I wonder if we could improve our
processes here. I'd really like to continue the work on this and and
like to avoid reactions being accepted as XEP in its current form.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___