[feature-request] allow file sending with http-upload
silberzwiebel opened this issue · comments
please implement uploading of files (images, videos, etc.) via the http-upload xmpp-spec (XEP-0363).
related to this: I noticed that when you send a URL via Kaiwa, Conversations wants to download the content which does not work for an URL to a news site, for instance, because Conversations expects images / videos. It seems that Conversations interprets URL sent with the tag and thus does not show the URL but wants to download it.
Not sure if this is Conversations fault or if the tag is something related to http-upload. If the latter is the case, Kaiwa should not use url tags for URLs that don't point at an image / video.
Maybe @iNPUTmice knows an answer to this?
@silberzwiebel what you do mean by url tags? Conversations will interpret everything OOB as a download.
I don't see way kaiwa would put normal URLs into oob.
I don't see way kaiwa would put normal URLs into oob.
Well, it's very likely. Could you please link us to spec that says we shouldn't put "normal" URLs inside OOB? I was looking for these definitions some time ago, and would be very glad if you point me to them.
Ah, I see. I do not have any experience in XMPP / XML, thus I was misreading the raw XML data. Here is this raw data, the first message came from Kaiwa, the second message came from Conversations.
@ForNeVeR the spec doesn't explicitly forbids from putting normal URLs in there but a) the spec is called XEP-0066: Out of Band Data.
and reads:
The intent of the 'jabber:iq:oob' was to provide a "least common denominator" mechanism for basic file transfers. Although SI File Transfer (XEP-0096) [1] defines a more generic method for communicating file exchange options, the 'jabber:iq:oob' namespace can be included as one option therein since it provides a fallback mechanism when clients do not support file transfer options such as those defined in SOCKS5 Bytestreams (XEP-0065) [2] and In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047) [3].
So I can't point you to a place where it forbids you from doing that. But on the other hand there is the big question on why you would add the oob for normal URLs?
Thanks for your experience, we'll discuss the situation with other developers. I personally don't think that we should post every single link as OOB. I'll create a new issue for that problem later.