Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
On May 8, 2008, at 12:12 AM, David P. Novakovic wrote:
> Great to have you around Peter.
>
> I have a question about the XEP you are working on at http://
> www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/microblogging.html
>
> Some microblogging platforms allow commenting on other people's
> microblog posts (like jaiku and friendfeed) - do you think itd be
> possible to have that functionality in the XEP? Seems like it could
> potentially be a bit restrictive. Of course comments could just be
> a different view on replies, but it's still not quite the same.
Doesn't the <in-reply-to /> element in the current version of the XEP
(see example 3 of the spec, please note that the XML is a bit wonky
on that part, peter will fix it when he wakes up :) ) does what you
need?
I would post to my microblog with a in-reply-to element pointing to
your item.
oh, and introducing myself: Pedro Melo, XMPP geek.
best regards,
That XML comes straight from RFC 4685. What aspect of the XML is wonky?
Do you not like the namespace prefixes?
> I would post to my microblog with a in-reply-to element pointing to
> your item.
Yes, that's the idea.
Naturally, you could also reply directly to the author (not post to your
microblogging node). But I'll add an example of that to the next version.
> oh, and introducing myself: Pedro Melo, XMPP geek.
You're everywhere! :)
The distinction between comments and replies it not clear to me. Is that
an interface issue? Or is there a difference between me commenting on
what you've posted (in the same thread) vs. me posting starting a new
thread that is triggered by something you've posted?
> Thanks for joining the group!
I'm on just about every other list that exists, why not this one? ;-)
> So far, I haven't done a whole lot of specifying on the XMPP side - it would
> be great if you had some opinions! The biggest thing I think we need to
> solve for the XMPP mechanisms is working out how to authorise subscriptions.
> The pubsub XMPP extension works pretty well in terms of defining the
> mechanisms for distributing the data, however, its white-list mechanism is a
> bit underspecified to use without additional work. I, personally, see
> GetPingd as predominantly a discovery mechanism for techniques that are
> already in use, so an important part of making XMPP work would be making
> this kind of mechanism discoverable.
It's not clear to me what you mean by subscription authorization and
whitelists in the context of XMPP pubsub. We do have the ability to
authorize subscriptions. See for instance:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#subscriber-subscribe-approval
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#owner-subreq
By whitelisting, do you mean (for example) the ability say that any
subscription from a particular domain is acceptable?
On May 8, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 05/08/2008 3:53 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>> On May 8, 2008, at 12:12 AM, David P. Novakovic wrote:
>>
>>> Great to have you around Peter.
>>>
>>> I have a question about the XEP you are working on at http://
>>> www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/microblogging.html
>>>
>>> Some microblogging platforms allow commenting on other people's
>>> microblog posts (like jaiku and friendfeed) - do you think itd be
>>> possible to have that functionality in the XEP? Seems like it could
>>> potentially be a bit restrictive. Of course comments could just be
>>> a different view on replies, but it's still not quite the same.
>>
>> Doesn't the <in-reply-to /> element in the current version of the XEP
>> (see example 3 of the spec, please note that the XML is a bit wonky
>> on that part, peter will fix it when he wakes up :) ) does what you
>> need?
>
> That XML comes straight from RFC 4685. What aspect of the XML is
> wonky?
> Do you not like the namespace prefixes?
When I read the XEP, the ref attribute ended not with a ' but with a
</id>.
I copy/pasted the example 3 in a XML validator and it failed at that
point.
Fixed now, thanks Peter.
>> I would post to my microblog with a in-reply-to element pointing to
>> your item.
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
>
> Naturally, you could also reply directly to the author (not post to
> your
> microblogging node). But I'll add an example of that to the next
> version.
A comment node on the author pubsub tree?
>> oh, and introducing myself: Pedro Melo, XMPP geek.
>
> You're everywhere! :)
<presence type="omni" />
:)
Best regards,
The distinction between comments and replies it not clear to me. Is that
an interface issue? Or is there a difference between me commenting on
what you've posted (in the same thread) vs. me posting starting a new
thread that is triggered by something you've posted?
>
> @ twitters aren't always replies. They may be the opening to a new
> conversation. It's just addressed to a certain person, like an email.
> And yes, as you point out, not all replies have @ leading them, and
> they don't necessarily have the ID of the @'ed person spelled
> correctly. :)
>
> Twitter is notoriously non-deterministic in this regard. A new
> distributed microblogging platform should probably attempt to cure
> some of these ills by making conversation threading explicit (like
> this mail group) with "reply" and "new post" buttons.
>
> Twitter definitely needs help with conversation threading and
> reconstruction. Lots of room for innovation here.
Jaiku (when its up) does this very well, IMHO.
Best regards,
JoeC
The same kind of thing has been in the back of my mind as I consider
how to implement a distributed Twitter. It doesn't seem correct or
necessary to have to implement everything in XMPP, or more to the
point re-implement well-known mechanisms.
The primary use of XMPP in a distributed microblogging system is to
notify subscribers.