On 3/20/09 12:25 AM, Helge Timenes wrote: > Firstly, I appologise for sluggish response. I ran into another > space-time continuum singularity...
It happens. :) > Secondly, see inline. > > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 3/14/09 4:28 AM, Helge Timenes wrote: >> >>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/13/09 8:49 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0255.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I notice that the suggested / allowable values of the 'type' attribute >>>> are "cell", "wifi", "bluetooth", "wimax", "rfid", "ip", "other". I see >>>> three ways to handle these: >>>> >>>> 1. Restrictive: lock down these values in the schema >>>> >>>> 2. Permissive: allow applications to include any value they choose >>>> >>>> 3. Extensible: set up a registry so that we don't need to update the >>>> spec every time we add a new value while still providing guidance to >>>> implementors >>>> >>>> I lean toward #3. >>>> >>>> >>> That seems sensible, though i suspect the reference types will change >>> frequently while the XEP is young, but at some point settle down as the >>> spec catches up with all the possibilities out there (sure new ones will >>> be invented, but not at a pace that is hard to keep up with I'd guess) >>> >> >> If we have a registry, we don't need to update the spec all the time. >> Perhaps it's not a big deal. >> >> >>> How would such a registry work? Are there examples of such from other XEPs? >>> >> >> I've defined all the registries so far since I'm the XMPP Registrar. :) >> It's easy enough for me to add this to the spec. >> >> > Register at will :-) I'd be happy to define the necessary registry bits in the XEP before we publish the next version. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
