Hi Guus, > We're in agreement, I think. I do prefer example 11 to be removed. Your > argument of keeping it is based on it being used to discover _items_. That > practice (discovering items) is not defined in section 5.2. Instead, that > is in section 5.5. Section 5.5 already has an appropriate example).
You're right, items discovery is only mentioned at the end of §5.2, and §5.5 describes it. So example 11 can be removed too. Regarding hierarchy, XEP-0496 and XEP-0499 are explicitly backward compatible, meaning that all nodes are returned if extended discovery is not used. So we can remove the notion of "first-level nodes" from the description of example 10 (except if we want to keep it due to XEP-0248). Will you make a PR for those changes? For a stable XEP it will have to go through council, and authors input would be good to have too. Best, Goffi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
