On Aug 25, 2011, at 07:46, Ralph Meijer wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:00 +0200, Andreas Monitzer wrote: >> On Thursday, August 25 2011 at 00:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Right, there are use cases (e.g., vCards in chatrooms) that make PEP >>> unworkable. I'm willing to have the discussion again. :) >> >> Then why not fix it at the source (PEP), maybe by creating a separate >> XEP for MUC-PEP? Is it better to have a workaround in every XEP that >> would otherwise use PEP instead? > > Agreed. We've talked about his on several instances of the XMPP Summit, > lastly in the Cisco offices near Brussels, sparked by the very same > specification for vCard. > > As far as I can remember we covered a lot of ground, but didn't reach a > conclusion. I'm not sure if anyone made notes there, but it would be > valuable to have a summary of aspects and issues around PubSub inside > MUC. Kevin, Matt, Joe, do you have such notes? >
I have some notes from a e2e discussion, but they only say "MUC should support PEP" (-: > >> My major issue is that requiring specific server support results in a >> huge delay in deployment, and some servers will never support it at >> all (which means that client developers will still have to implement >> vcard-temp in 2020), since many server developers and admins are of >> the kind "if it ain't broke, don't touch it". > > I'm not sure if this is also about using PEP for transporting vCard4, > but I seem to remember some of the possible solutions did impose > cooperation of the MUC room for doing PEP 'properly'. > Agreed. - m&m <http://goo.gl/voEzk>
