On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:52, Michal Vaner (Vorner) wrote: > > So basically what you're saying is, the only way to find out is to try > > and then get an error, because: > > > > 1) a server might be 100% XMPP compliant, and simply allow the privacy > > list feature to be disabled, or; > > Then the software might be compliant, but the server is not. Compliant > server must support it and have it available. Therefore, what does not > provide this is not compliant.
That's not the opinion people here had about Google only allowing plaintext
authentication. They said that what a server chooses to expose to the world
is the server's choice, and it doesn't make it non-compliant.
(If you want to start that argument up again, you can take it up with the
people who originally had the opposite opinion because really, I just care
about getting things to work.)
> > 2) a server might not claim to be XMPP compliant at all, and still
> > support the feature.
>
> It may be missing something else, therefore it would not be compliant for
> other reason.
You must have misread what I wrote. Try reading it again, with emphasis added
around the important part.
A server ** might not claim to be XMPP compliant at all **
...and still support the feature.
For example, if jabberd1.4 went and implemented privacy lists, then it would
still have privacy lists as a feature, without being XMPP compliant or even
claiming to be. In this scenario, I don't want to penalise the server
because it supports the feature I need it to support.
In other words, assuming that only compliant servers support privacy lists is
just as incorrect as assuming that privacy lists are only supported on
compliant servers.
> Then you would have to provide a way to test if the server allows sending
> stanzas and everything. The protocol would get incredibly complicated if
> you tested just any feature. In every protocol, there is some base that can
> not be tested, protocol states it is supported by anything, so why to test
> it? Would it make logical sense to say it is supported by any server and
> then allow client to test if it is?
No, but this isn't a feature supported by every server, is it?
Even assuming this _were_ a feature which were supported by all XMPP compliant
servers, there is actually no disco#info feature which can tell me that a
server is XMPP compliant in the first place.
TX
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://trypticon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
pgpF9M89h5a3y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
