On 04.03.2018 17:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/4/18 1:27 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> On 04.03.2018 02:30, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> On Mar 3, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Timothée Jaussoin <edhe...@movim.eu> wrote: >>>> Thanks for the answers. I'm fine for the 3071 limitation, so we can set it >>>> both for the Pubsub nodes id and Pubsub items it? >>>> If yes I'm ok to do a PR on the 0060 to specify that. I'm also wondering >>>> if there is a specific way of declaring such string >>>> limitations, are you aware of any other XEPs that specify such things? >>> >>> As mentioned, I think this belongs in XEP-0030 but I suppose it can be >>> defined in XEP-0060. >> >> Could you elaborate why you think that it belongs in xep30? Are xep30 >> item node's related to xep60 nodes? How fit xep60 item IDs into this? > > The concept of a node was originally defined in XEP-0030, and the usage > in XEP-0060 borrowed from XEP-0030. The former is more fundamental and > thus I think it would be good to specify this in XEP-0030 (so that > "node" means the same thing across all protocol extensions). Or we could > resurrect XEP-0271: > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0271.html
Whatever we do, there should have a prominent pointer from the affected XEPs to the place where we specific the limitations on node values. >> Related: I wonder if we should specify string preparation for xep60 node >> and item ID strings. Same goes for the strings used by xep30, e.g. >> <feature/>'s 'var' attribute value. Is any Unicode string a valid value >> for those? Or is this already specified somewhere and I just missed it? > > If we want to specify this, I would recommend the UsernameCaseMapped > profile defined in RFC 8265. > > However, there's a twist: if a node ID can be a full JID, then do we > want to apply the normal rules of RFC 7622 to all the JID parts, instead > of one uniform profile such as UsernameCaseMapped to the entire node ID? > For instance, the resourcepart of a JID is allowed to contain a much > wider range of Unicode characters than is allowed by the > UsernameCaseMapped profile of the PRECIS IdentifierClass (which we use > for the localpart). I believe the following requirements are sensible: 1.) If we specify a profile, then it must be applied to the whole value 2.) Since it is a common use case to put JIDs into node ID values, we must ensure that distinct (full?) JIDs, do not map not the same node ID. And if I'm not mistaken, resourceparts are case preserving, as result it depends on whether or not we deem support for full JIDs in node IDs worthwhile, which PRECIS profiles we need to consider. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
