[jdev] RE: email is a slum

[Bob Wyman]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> You're absolutely right about the need for archiving. Some 
> pubsub systems might keep history, but it may make more sense 
> to use ATOM for archiving (it sure beats mbox ;-).
	In the jdev room yesterday, you mentioned a desire to create an Atom
over Jabber JEP. Well, perhaps we also need a "Jabber in Atom" JEP to get a
common agreement on how to archive Jabber messages using Atom. I believe it
may be as simple as declaring a namespace to be used with atom:content tags,
but I may be missing some complexity...
	An atom entry containing a Jabber PubSub messages might look like:

<entry>
    <title>Jabber Message ID 11234</title>
    <id>tag:jabber.org,2003:3.2397</id>
    <author>pubsub.jabber.org</author>
    <issued>2003-12-13T08:29:29-04:00</issued>
    <modified>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</modified>
    <content type="application/xml" mode="xml">
      <message to="subscriber1" from="pubsub.jabber.org"
        xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/ ">
       <event xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event">
         <items node="generic/pgm-mp3-player">
           <item id="current">
             <tune xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/tune">
               <artist>Ralph Vaughan Williams</artist>
               <title>Concerto in F for Bass Tuba</title>
               <source>Golden Brass: The Collector's Edition</source>
             </tune>
           </item>
         </items>
       </event>
     </message>
    </content>
  </entry>

	Of course, one might actually want to strip off the <event> <items>
<item> stuff and do something else with it... It looks kind of like overkill
the way I show it above. What do you think?
	Fortunately, now that Atom is an IETF Working Group, any "fluidity"
in the specification will eventually be flushed out...

		bob wyman