Draft: XEP-0372: urn:xmpp:reference:1#1281
Conversation
edhelas
commented
Apr 6, 2023
edhelas
commented
- Redefine types
- Bump the namespace.
- Make uri parameter non mandatory
- Remove the mentions chapter (defined in another XEP).
- Add reference to XEP-0426
- Add the XML schema
- Add restrictions around the begin and end attributes
- Complete the discovery section
- Add the optional hreflang attribute
- Redefine types - Bump the namespace. - Make uri parameter non mandatory - Remove the mentions chapter (defined in another XEP). - Add reference to XEP-0426 - Add the XML schema - Add restrictions around the begin and end attributes - Complete the discovery section - Add the optional hreflang attribute
edhelas
force-pushed
the
feature/references-bump-type
branch
from
0e3853a to
dd2f16e
Compare
edhelas
changed the title
Kev
added
the
Needs Author
|
Why are mentions being removed? Isn't that most of the point of this XEP? I'm also not sure we need to bump the namespace as this will break everyone using references today. |
|
The goal for it was to make the spec generic enough and without specific features, so that other specs could define their own types. Mentions were supposed to be re-added with something like https://bouah.net/specs/mentions.html but I'm not going to pursue on this. I guess personally I'd settle with just the following for the moment:
I do think making it really generic is the most interesting part of the PR, but that also makes me wonder if the spec just isn't too broad. Anyway this is still "Needs Author". |
|
Hadn't clicked that this is waiting on my review, sorry. Have added it to my TODO. |
|
Bump @Kev |
| from='balcony@channels.shakespeare.lit' | ||
| to='romeo@montegue.lit/30d3d8'> | ||
| <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' | ||
| type='data' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be type='urn:xmpp:reference:data:1' as well? Also, does type HAVE to be a URI? Seems implied because of service discovery, but maybe worth making explicit on line 116?
|
Having finally had a proper look at this, I think this combines some probably sensible things, with some not (e.g. removing mentions doesn't seem to serve a purpose). |
5 participants
