[JDEV] headline message type (was: JEP-0060 pubsub implementation?)

[Julian Missig]

On Sunday, Dec 22, 2002, at 22:46 US/Eastern, Jeremy Nickurak wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 17:42, Greg Hewgill wrote:
>> Has anybody created an implementation of JEP-0060? Or is anybody 
>> working on
>> one? The spec looks like just what I'm looking for, but it seems that 
>> it's too
>> new to have any working code (or I just can't find any).
>>
>> I also presume it
>> supersedes previous "headline" implementations, for which I can't 
>> seem to find
>> a JEP at all, just http://www.pipetree.com/jabber/headlines.html . 
>> I'm guessing
>> that since the copyright date on that article is 2000, and JEP-0024 
>> is by the
>> same author, JEP-0024 is intended to supersede the headline 
>> implementation
>> described in the article.
>
> Traditionally, headlines have never really had a specific standard,
> instead distributing its payload with the jabber:x:oob namespace. I'm
> considering what direction to take for the next version of Janchor (
> http://janchor.jabberstudio.org/ ). Personally, I'm leaning towards
> distributing the actual items in bulk in an RSS namspace, either 1.x or
> or the new 2.0 namespace. (eg, one delivery for all the new items in a
> particular update.) Such headlines could then be enclosed in a message
> block, or in a pubsub item, as both support the inclusion of properly
> namespaced children.
>
> As for the "headline" message type, the only thing it appears to
> officially indicate is that the message was automatically generated (
> http://www.jabber.org/ietf/draft-ietf-xmpp-core-00.html#anchor6 ). In
> this sense, I think it's probabbly either poorly named, or perhaps
> entirely unneccesary, IMHO.

All of the message types are user interface hints, not protocol routing 
information. The "headline" message type is a hint to a client that 
this isn't the type of message you typically reply to, it's some sort 
of bit of information that an agent is sending to you. Just because not 
all clients take advantage of it doesn't mean it's unnecessary. :)

Julian