Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Mon Dec 20 13:10:19 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: - As written in the draft, The client MAY add a “reply” attribute which gives the parent existing collection node. The default value of this attribute is the node where the item is published. - Actually I was a sick when i've written this draft (perhaps that's why I couldn't express me correctly --), but I would meant that by /default/ this is a child node of the node where the item is published. But, that can be a nice feature if the user is available to choose the node where the item will be published; The trouble with this model is that you're redefining how pubsub works quite radically. Nodes, currently can be one of two types: Collection Nodes, which contain other nodes (or, more strictly, pointers to other nodes). Leaf Nodes, which contain items. In both cases, they can contain as many things (nodes or items) as you like, although in PEP implementations this needs to be only one, and most (all?) current implementations restrict the number of items to a minimum. As such, I'd expect implementations of this to support many items per node, and full access model control to allow (or disallow) replies on the node as needs be. There's really no need to a protocol extension to pubsub to support this. In order to effectively unify the two models (ie, posting replies on your own node versus posting replies on the original poster's), I'd have thought you do this: 1) Replies are posted to the poster's µblog node. 2) The replier also posts a pointer (possibly duplicating the post) to a replies node on their own personal pubsub service. Then, the only risk is that a replier actually posts a top-level entry into someone else's µblog - in this case, though, it's pretty easy to spot and the node owner can remove it as well. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
The trouble with this model is that you're redefining how pubsub works quite radically. Nodes, currently can be one of two types: I missed that... As such, I'd expect implementations of this to support many items per node, and full access model control to allow (or disallow) replies on the node as needs be. There's really no need to a protocol extension to pubsub to support this. Perhaps is this the simplest way - delegate the work to the client implementation: if the user has a write access on a node, the client has to propose to answer to the item. In this case, there is a leaf node for each published item. No need of XEP for this, as you told. - On this, Floriant was right. Then, the problem still the pointer - user can choose to post the reply on his own pubsub, in this case, he must send an pointer item on the original item's. So, how do we define the pointer? I began a little proposition about this (point 5 of the draft), but still incomplete - and, why not, add an attribute to define if is it a reply or a trackball (like in wordpress), a copy of the original etc. ? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Mon Dec 20 16:20:23 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: The trouble with this model is that you're redefining how pubsub works quite radically. Nodes, currently can be one of two types: I missed that... As such, I'd expect implementations of this to support many items per node, and full access model control to allow (or disallow) replies on the node as needs be. There's really no need to a protocol extension to pubsub to support this. Perhaps is this the simplest way - delegate the work to the client implementation: if the user has a write access on a node, the client has to propose to answer to the item. In this case, there is a leaf node for each published item. No, there's a single leaf node for *all* the published items. And I'd argue that if you can't post to a node, then direct replies are not supported by that node. No need of XEP for this, as you told. - On this, Floriant was right. No, there's still a need to document how it should work, but there's no need to extend the protocol. Then, the problem still the pointer - user can choose to post the reply on his own pubsub, in this case, he must send an pointer item on the original item's. So, how do we define the pointer? I began a little proposition about this (point 5 of the draft), but still incomplete - and, why not, add an attribute to define if is it a reply or a trackball (like in wordpress), a copy of the original etc. ? You can place the pointer within the payload. I'd be quite surprised if there weren't one available already within Atom. There's certainly replies, etc, with the threading extension, I'd imagine there's a canonical URI some place there. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 20/12/2010 14:45, Dave Cridland wrote: No, there's a single leaf node for *all* the published items. And I'd argue that if you can't post to a node, then direct replies are not supported by that node. What do u propose then to link the answer onto the base item? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Mon Dec 20 16:48:58 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 20/12/2010 14:45, Dave Cridland wrote: No, there's a single leaf node for *all* the published items. And I'd argue that if you can't post to a node, then direct replies are not supported by that node. What do u propose then to link the answer onto the base item? WHat's needed beyond Atom threading in the payload? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 20/12/2010 14:58, Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Dec 20 16:48:58 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 20/12/2010 14:45, Dave Cridland wrote: No, there's a single leaf node for *all* the published items. And I'd argue that if you can't post to a node, then direct replies are not supported by that node. What do u propose then to link the answer onto the base item? WHat's needed beyond Atom threading in the payload? Dave. The problem is by using Atom that you'll limit reply node to Atom content then - otherwise, you'll lost the power of pubsub, even if Atom is extensible; a stupid example should be: if I want to answer with a mood, or a tune (even if it is basically expected for PEP, nothing should prevent me to post this) -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Mon Dec 20 17:03:30 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 20/12/2010 14:58, Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Dec 20 16:48:58 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 20/12/2010 14:45, Dave Cridland wrote: No, there's a single leaf node for *all* the published items. And I'd argue that if you can't post to a node, then direct replies are not supported by that node. What do u propose then to link the answer onto the base item? WHat's needed beyond Atom threading in the payload? Dave. The problem is by using Atom that you'll limit reply node to Atom content then - otherwise, you'll lost the power of pubsub, even if Atom is extensible; a stupid example should be: if I want to answer with a mood, or a tune (even if it is basically expected for PEP, nothing should prevent me to post this) Atom can be used to frame arbitrary content, as far as I'm aware. Absolutely nothing prevents you from replying with a mood element embedded in Atom. The Atom just buys us all the threadings and post mobility. If you look at Identi.ca, for instance, they throw a half-dozen representations of the post content, plus geolocation information, profile information of the poster, the instruction manual for the poster's fridge, and so on. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 20/12/2010 15:16, Dave Cridland wrote: The problem is by using Atom that you'll limit reply node to Atom content then - otherwise, you'll lost the power of pubsub, even if Atom is extensible; a stupid example should be: if I want to answer with a mood, or a tune (even if it is basically expected for PEP, nothing should prevent me to post this) Atom can be used to frame arbitrary content, as far as I'm aware. Absolutely nothing prevents you from replying with a mood element embedded in Atom. The Atom just buys us all the threadings and post mobility. Isn't it blending pubsub with atom too much? I mean, atom is a kind of content like other which can be in a pubsub item. If we decide to use it as a container of (in the previous example) mood element (or any kind of content), why not directly replace item element with an atom entry (if it can embed the kind of sub-element we want)? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Mon Dec 20 17:23:49 2010, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 20/12/2010 15:16, Dave Cridland wrote: The problem is by using Atom that you'll limit reply node to Atom content then - otherwise, you'll lost the power of pubsub, even if Atom is extensible; a stupid example should be: if I want to answer with a mood, or a tune (even if it is basically expected for PEP, nothing should prevent me to post this) Atom can be used to frame arbitrary content, as far as I'm aware. Absolutely nothing prevents you from replying with a mood element embedded in Atom. The Atom just buys us all the threadings and post mobility. Isn't it blending pubsub with atom too much? I mean, atom is a kind of content like other which can be in a pubsub item. If we decide to use it as a container of (in the previous example) mood element (or any kind of content), why not directly replace item element with an atom entry (if it can embed the kind of sub-element we want)? Because PubSub nodes contain items - replacing the item element with an Atom element would mean breaking compatibility with PubSub. It doesn't seem useful to do that. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 20/12/2010 15:38, Dave Cridland wrote: Because PubSub nodes contain items - replacing the item element with an Atom element would mean breaking compatibility with PubSub. It doesn't seem useful to do that. (Actually, I'd meant in a perspective of redefining pubsub, cause Atom is more flexible than the item element itself. Anyway...) Okay, so let's take the Atom way then: when a node allows a write access to user, it means he can post reply to items on it. But there stills a problem: imagine than - in a more general way - I post an blog article on my blog node; how will I manage wether people will effectively post a reply to this article or when they will post an article which is not a reply? For certain kind of content allowing people post in my node item which are not necesseraly item can be useful (like facebook wall), but others no. -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 20/12/2010 19:01, Thomas Baquet wrote: Okay, so let's take the Atom way then: when a node allows a write access to user, it means he can post reply to items on it. But there stills a problem: imagine than - in a more general way - I post an blog article on my blog node; how will I manage wether people will effectively post a reply to this article or when they will post an article which is not a reply? For certain kind of content allowing people post in my node item which are not necesseraly item can be useful (like facebook wall), but others no. It would really help if we had some concrete examples of what features and use-cases this spec is trying to support? We all have different ideas of what micro-blogging means means and arbitrarily hammering out a spec without some predefined use cases and users stories is spec-masturbation: fun, but rather pointless. It may well be worth leaving this spec as nothing more than publish to a node (pep or pubsub) and use atom payloads. Trying to define anything more than that, like the business logic of who can reply to what is really the role of an implementer and depends on the type of community they are building their application for. If people want to define more then implement an application and see how users use it and adjust accordingly. I would really like this stuff all standardised based on how buddycloud users have used channels, but even then I think that going more detailed is really constraining (and with little benefit). S. -- Simon Tennant mobile: +49 17 8545 0880 office: +49 89 4209 55854 office: +44 20 7043 6756 xmpp: si...@buddycloud.com build your own open and federated social network - http://open.buddycloud.com
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 12/04/2010 07:55 PM, Thomas Baquet wrote: I've written a first draft (full of awful errors, certainly); what do u think? Hello, Some comments on this draft (sorry if some of them are pointless. I'm still not an XMPP expert): - Do you think this should be part of the XEP-0277 or should this be a separate XEP? - I don’t understand why the publishing entity would decide to create the reply-node on an other node than where the item is being published. Wouldn't it be simpler to just create the reply-node as a child of the node where the item is published? This imply, for example, that the microblogging node (urn:xmpp:microblog:0) MUST be of type collection, if the service wants to permit replies to microblog-posts. Isn't it? - I think allow-reply and reply are a bit redundant. To allow users to reply to an item, the publishing entity MUST include a reply / element as a child of the item / element it wishes to publish. This reply / element MUST be empty and MAY contain a node attribute indicating the child node the server MUST create and where replies to this item SHOULD be published. If this element doesn’t contain any node attribute, this reply-node defaults to the item’s id. Example 1. User publish an item on a node iq type='set' from='ham...@denmark.lit/blogbot' to='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' id='publish1' pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub' publish node='princely_musings' item id='bnd81g37d61f49fgn581' entry xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' !-- SNIP -- /entry reply node=reply-bnd81g37d61f49fgn581 / /item /publish /pubsub /iq Example $$. Server will reply: iq type='result' from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='franci...@denmark.lit/barracks' id='items1' pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub' items node='princely_musings' item id='bnd81g37d61f49fgn581' entry xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' !-- SNIP -- /entry reply node=princely_musings/reply-bnd81g37d61f49fgn581 / /item /items /pubsub /iq With the help of this XEP, we could have two microblogging models. - The twitter/identi.ca-like model: items are published with an Open access model, with no reply / element. User can still “respond” in their own microblog, as defined currently in 0277. - The Facebook/diaspora-like model: items are published with a Roster access model, with a reply / element as defined above. This second microblogging model could be defined in an additional XEP. (for a total of 3 XEPs : 0277, Reply On Pubsub, Microblog Second Model) -- Florent Le Coz
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 01/12/2010 17:03, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:40:34 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html I'm entirely happy with maintaining this, as long as there is sufficient interest in the community to provide things to put *in* it. ie, I'll cheerfully act as editor, and document consensus, but not author. Dave. Okay, I've been thinking a while theses last days about this, read again this thread: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023817.html , and then would share some ideas: - every pubsub node can have an answer node, given in an @related attribute (or else), which is a collection node, and on which users will post answers; - for each item in the node, there is a subnode created on the answer collection node using the id of the concerned item. The server will create it only when an user will publish an element on the subnode. - each item in the answer node can have an @related attribute, which is the id of an another item published in the same answer node; Basically, I tough about thread attribute, but this is limited at one sub-level of answer. - user can post a reference element on the answer node in state of publish element directly on the answer node. In this case, use atom? This system can be used for microblogging, blogging, forum, and so... Example for microblogging: C: iq type=get to=ro...@shakespeare.it query xmlns=http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items; /iq S: iq type=result to=jul...@shakespeare.it queryxmlns=http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items; item node=urn:xmpp:microblog related=urn:xmpp:microblog:comments / item node=urn:xmpp:activityStreamrelated=urn:xmpp:activityStream:comments / item node=mylifeisbeautifulrelated=comments/mylifeisbeautiful / item node=ilovejulietsomuchrelated=comments/ilovejulietsomuch / /query /iq C: iq type=get to=ro...@shakespeare.it pubsubxmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub' itemsnode=urn:xmpp:microblog:0/ /pubsub /iq S: iq type=result to=jul...@shakespeare.it pubsubxmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub' items node=urn:xmpp:microblog:0 related=urn:xmpp:microblog:comments item id=item000 !-- DATA -- /item item id=item001 !-- DATA -- /item item id=item002 !-- DATA -- /item /items /pubsub /iq C: iq type=get to=ro...@shakespeare.it query xmlns=http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items; node=urn:xmpp:microblog:comments /iq S: iq type=result to=jul...@shakespeare.it queryxmlns=http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items; node=urn:xmpp:microblog:comments item node=item000/ item node=item001/ item node=item002/ /query /iq -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 01/12/2010 16:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 11:30 AM, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 01/12/2010 16:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html Oops... Peter Perhaps enlarge this extensions to all forms of Pubsub content implying answering, forwarding, etc., no? Are you volunteering? ;-) I've written a first draft (full of awful errors, certainly); what do u think? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox xep - reply on pubsub.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 01/12/2010 16:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html Oops... Peter Perhaps enlarge this extensions to all forms of Pubsub content implying answering, forwarding, etc., no? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 12/1/10 11:30 AM, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 01/12/2010 16:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html Oops... Peter Perhaps enlarge this extensions to all forms of Pubsub content implying answering, forwarding, etc., no? Are you volunteering? ;-) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On 01/12/2010 16:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 11:30 AM, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 01/12/2010 16:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html Oops... Peter Perhaps enlarge this extensions to all forms of Pubsub content implying answering, forwarding, etc., no? Are you volunteering? ;-) To help, why not; the problem still that my English is a bit ugly and that I miss a lot of time... But that can be interesting to make a PiratePad ( http://piratepad.net ) where people can work on this and push ideas, no? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFox
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
Hi Peter, I might be interested since I'm partially involved in the OneSocialWeb project, but to be honest I have no experience with XEP-maintainership (time/effort required, skills and so on...) Sorry for the newbie question, but can you provide me some details about that? Thanks a lo luca 2010/12/1 Thomas Baquet ld.black...@gmail.com On 01/12/2010 16:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 11:30 AM, Thomas Baquet wrote: On 01/12/2010 16:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html Oops... Peter Perhaps enlarge this extensions to all forms of Pubsub content implying answering, forwarding, etc., no? Are you volunteering? ;-) To help, why not; the problem still that my English is a bit ugly and that I miss a lot of time... But that can be interesting to make a PiratePad ( http://piratepad.net ) where people can work on this and push ideas, no? -- Thomas Baquet (aka Lord Blackfox) Jabber ID: ldblack...@papaya.im Website: http://www.lordblackfox.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/LordBlackFoxhttp://twitter.com/#%21/LordBlackFox -- Luca Faggioli OneSocialWeb JID: l...@social.openliven.com
Re: [Standards] microblogging maintainer :)
On Wed Dec 1 16:40:34 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 12/1/10 9:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Dec 1 16:33:30 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Will someone volunteer to take over maintainership of XEP-0270? I simply don't have the cycles to do it justice. XEP-0270 is compliance suites - don't we want to shelve that one and make a 2011 one? (Something I'd be fine with handling the XEP side of, but couldn't hope to pretend to be impartial about). Sorry, I meant the microblogging spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html I'm entirely happy with maintaining this, as long as there is sufficient interest in the community to provide things to put *in* it. ie, I'll cheerfully act as editor, and document consensus, but not author. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
