On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Evgeny <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:25 PM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> > wrote: > > We put arbitrary namespaced data inside messages and other stanzas > > all the time to no ill effect. Why is putting it inside PEP data > > items so different? > > Because I like the approach used when designing ASN.1 schemas (see for > example RFC 5280 (PKIX) or, more simple, RFC 6960 (OCSP)), where you > define "extensions" fields explicitly. And in the case of 'message' > stanzas we kinda have implicit assumption that this stanza has such > "extensions" field where we put whatever we need (speaking in ASN.1 > approach). > > So actually I like the suggestion of Emmanuel with extensions element. >
OK, so you're happy with an extension-wrapping element? That's an acceptable compromise for me - in as much as it's better than nothing - though I still hold that if a client is manipulating shared data it needs to preserve things it doesn't understand rather than trample all over them. :-) Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
