On 06/08/2012 10:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/8/12 3:56 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>
> I'm confused. Why can't we just re-use the following metadata fields
> from Section 4.1.1 of RFC 4287 and place them in the x:data form
> described in Section 5.4 of XEP-0060?
>
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}author
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}category
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}contributor
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}generator
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}icon
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}id
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}link
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}logo
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}rights
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}subtitle
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}title
> {http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom}updated
>
I see the following reasons here:
1) some of these fields have more complex types that just a string. For
example, atom:title can contain xhtml data and then it has to have a
type attribute there, category field can contain attributes term, scheme
and label, and so on.
2) We are losing in flexibility very significantly:
2.1) why nodes with not an atom payload should receive these fields when
configuring?
2.2) what shall we do if we will faced with the same problem for another
payloads? Our configuration form is already very huge. For example, you
mentioned XEP-84, why not add fields bytes, id, height, type, width into
the form too to avoid extra node as excessive?
> Peter
>
--
With best regards,
Sergey Dobrov,
XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
