What is the status of the protoxep http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/microblogging.html ? Is this going to be made a formal XEP anytime soon? Given that we've already got "microblogging" systems like Identi.ca, Jaiku, and Twitter (when running) that are being built and deployed, if we're going to have a standard here, we're probably going to have to get it agreed fairly soon.Otherwise, implementations will get so far entrenched that it won't really be possible to make any real changes to them...
I may not be reading the proposal correctly... Please help me with a few points of potential confusion: The protoxep <http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/microblogging.html> makes a fairly significant assumption that PEP/PubSub is supported. This comes out most clearly in the assumption that the way one publishes an item is by forming an XML stanza that targets a specific node. While that is fine, it doesn't map to reality. Today, people are becoming used to microblogging via XMPP by sending bare chat messages to a bot such as [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. This simple chat message method has the advantage of being something that can be used with a simple chat client. Using the methods of PEP/PubSub to publish would require that more complex client software be used to form the messages. Similarly, the common practice today is for XMPP bots to implement textual "command line" interfaces for doing things like setting up "follow," "track," listing subscriptions, search, etc. Of course, each service implements a slightly different syntax and it isn't always obvious how one maps the various functions to what is defined in the protoxep. The protoxep recommends that microblogging publishers should include a <body/> element in what they publish in order to enable simple clients to work as though they were receiving simple chat messages. However, it would appear that one shouldn't publish messages to a simple client unless it advertises support for the "urn:xmpp:tmp:microblog+notify" capability or has an explicit PubSub subscription. But, a simple client is not likely to have met either of these conditions... So, why would something that conforms to this protoxep ever publish anything to a simple client? I admit that I may be totally confused in not understanding how we get from here to there... bob wyman
