On Tue Oct 27 08:19:42 2009, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Monday 26 October 2009 23:03:15 Nathan Fritz wrote:
> 3) XEP-0226: Message Stanza Profiles, Issue Last Call?
>
> A consensus is reached on issuing a last call on XEP-0226,
although
> Matthew Wild notes that he finds the XEP pointless.
I'll explain the rationale for the message stanza profiles XEP.
First, I believe ambiguity in message stanza processing is a
long-standing
protocol issue that needs to be solved. I initially wrote about it
in 2004:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2004-August/006001.html
Right - I'd note that Kurt used the definitions in XEP-0226 to define
security labels as Metadata in XEP-0258 - in other words saying that
these do not affect the "final action", merely the "processing".
So I think this XEP could serve in two roles.
Firstly, giving client authors a specification for consistently
processing a particular stanza to achieve the same result, or as we
in the standards development world call it, "interoperability".
Secondly, we can use the terms defined in the specification to
describe what various extensions are doing in their own
specifications - so we can say that a XEP-0258 security label is
"metadata" - ie, it doesn't affect the nature of the stanza, but it
may affect its handling.
Or we can say a pubsub event element is a... erm... profile element?
Oddly, XEP-0226 doesn't define a term for that, now I look.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
