On 22 June 2017 at 21:02, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > If you take a look at example 13 of XEP-0357 there is a > publish-options form field called secret which probably counts as an > example of 'meta-data'. > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html > If that XEP wouldn't register that form field a pub service that > advertises publish-options would reject it. (Nobody forces the App > server to do in fact advertise publish-options. And tbh honest it is > highly questionable why push notifications even use pubsub syntax but > that's a discussion for another day) >
Good spot. Yes, publishing metadata rather than item metadata, then. > 2017-06-22 21:52 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de>: >> 2017-06-22 21:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>: >>> On 22 June 2017 at 20:23, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: >>>> I went ahead and created a PR reflecting the changes we discussed. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/481 >>>> >>>> Rendered version is linked from within the PR. >>> >>> Thanks for this. This seems mostly reasonable, but I'm concerned by >>> per-item metadata which I didn't realise you were thinking of. >>> >>> Could you perhaps give some examples of what you're thinking here? The >>> only metadata I care about at present is security labels, and those >>> (currently) don't have a way of being put in forms. >> >> This was copy pasted from here: >> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#registrar-formtypes-publish >> >> I don't know what metadata means in that context. I'm happy to remove it. >> >> cheers >> Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
