Ralph Meijer wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:On Tue Jul 29 06:49:41 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In accordance with XMPP Council consensus, I have provisionally separated> all the information about pubsub collections into a new spec:> I wonder if at the same time we might want to move the information about> presence integration from XEP-0060 back to XEP-0163?I'm in favour of splitting collections, but not so much of splitting out presence - we spent quite a long time deciding that 163 should only be a profile of 60, from what I recall.As a suggestion - and I'm only highlighting options - we could split out the fancier things into one or more new specifications, leaving XEP-0060 as a core, with extra XEPs holding additional features, and XEP-0163 binds XEP-0060 and a selection of brightly coloured coat hangers into the profile that is PEP.I'm not sure if this is a good idea, mind - it's not clear to me if this gives a net benefit or not - but it would keep XEP-0163's "profile" status.I was thinking the same thing, indeed.
Right. So not all pubsub-related features would be defined in XEP-0060, because certain "profiles" (the only example we have so far is PEP) would define new node configuration options and the like. The result would be that XEP-0060 defines the core (is that just "pub" and "sub"?) whilst other specs define things like collections, presence integration, filtered notifications, subscription options, management of subscription requests by the node owner and other such administrative tasks, etc. So we'd have a stripped-down XEP-0060 and a bunch of extensions to the pubsub core.
Or at least that's how I understood our conversation in Portland. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
