On 8/3/12 9:44 AM, Tuomas Koski wrote: > Hi Todd, > > On 3 August 2012 17:16, Todd Herman <t...@apx-labs.com> wrote: >>> I have been reviewing XEP-0060 (pubsub) and have come across something that >>> is bothering me. >> >>> Throughout the document, notification events are highlighted and discussed. >>> The events come as a Message element with a child Event element that is in >>> the jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event >namespace. This is the case for >>> nearly every event notification until you get to the very end of section 8 >>> in the document. >> >>> 8.9.4 describes the notification event for an affiliation change. However, >>> this event notification is a Message stanza with a Pubsub child element >>> (rather than an Event element). I would like to >understand why it is this >>> way. The section above it, 8.8.4, covers subscription notifications (very >>> similar in nature to the affiliations) and it is under an Event element. >> >>> Could someone tell me if there is a specific reason for it being setup this >>> way? If their isn’t, I would like to submit that “affiliation” be added >>> under the Event namespace (similar to subscription) and >section 8.9.4 be >>> updated accordingly. >> >> I am resending this message from yesterday because we really need a >> response. I don’t want to move away from the specification but we want to >> code this in a manner that makes sense. We currently use OpenFire and >> OpenFire doesn’t event seem to support this event at all so it shouldn’t be >> an issue with OpenFire. We are writing our own server so we can code it to >> behave the way we want. Does anyone have any thoughts here? > > I think this issue has had some previous discussion already here > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/pubsub/2011-August/000719.html > > (Yep, some time ago). > > I have always implemented the "affiliation -notifications" in > http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event namespace (where I think it's > more consistent with the rest of the events).
Well, I said I would flag this as an open issue, and I suppose it still is, because I haven't gotten around to working on revisions to XEP-0060. :( However, I think we have agreement that this is an error in the spec. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
