On Mittwoch, 13. März 2019 16:57:07 CEST Kevin Smith wrote: > On 2 Mar 2019, at 18:56, Tedd Sterr <teddst...@outlook.com> wrote: > > 3a) PR #758 - XEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and > > pubsub#publish_model - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758 > > <https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758> Jonas assumes this is still > > optional, so that existing services aren't suddenly non-compliant; Link > > confirms. > As far as I can tell, this is inside an if you do this (OPTIONAL) you SHOULD > include all the fields, so it’s not clear to me that this is true. > > I think I should -1 on that basis, but hoping that someone tells me I’ve > misunderstood.
I am going over the open PRs and came across this. So my understanding is that node configuration is dynamic and the XEP lists a lot of fields which may or may not be supported. My understanding is that a client can not rely on all of the fields to be there anyways: > If metadata is provided, it SHOULD include values for all configured options > as well as "automatic" information such as the node creation date, a list of > publishers, and the like. So I read it this way: - A client cannot rely on a server providing all configured options anyways. - pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model exist and are configuration options. - A server SHOULD include configuration options in that form. The current example do not show the two existing options. So one could read this PR as making the example more compliant. I don’t think this is a breaking change either way; services may support or not-support arbitrary node configuration options anyways, and clients *have* to deal with stuff missing in any form in pubsub anyways. Please correct me if I’m wrong. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
