Hi again!
I'll certainly make a PR, but I'm waiting for a while, to:
- give others an opportunity to provide feedback
- find out, while I continue working down the XEP, if there are other
things that I'd like to address.
One such 'other thing' is this:
XEP-0060 in section 4.6 defines two forms of addressing: JID and
JID+NodeID. It states the JID format SHOULD be used when using a protocol
that does not support the node attribute. However, it does not explicitly
prohibit the JID format from being used if the protocol _does_ support the
node attribute, right?
I believe that this leaves the door open to using the JID address format
with Service Discovery. Unless I'm mistaken, this is then a valid
equivalent of example 10:
<iq type='result'
from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit'
to='[email protected]/barracks'
id='nodes1'>
<query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items'>
<item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/blogs'
name='Weblog updates'/>
<item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/news'
name='News and announcements'/>
</query>
</iq>
This seems to be indistinguishable from a response that discovers items
(rather than nodes) as specified in section 5.5.
Using JID+NodeID in a protocol that supports the node attribute seems a
silly thing to do to me, but I don't think it is forbidden by the XEP.
Should we add a restriction (or at least a recommendation)?
Kind regards,
Guus
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:32 AM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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_______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
