Yann Leboulanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why isn't the hidden field FORM_TYPE appended to S? Exclusion of > > hidden fields is not mentioned. > it is appended, it's the first one
Ah yes, I implemented it but didn't saw it when wondering afterwards. :-) > > Why do "http://jabber.org/protocol/caps " and > > "http://jabber.org/protocol/muc " include a trailing white-space, > > opposed to their representation in the Service Discovery result? > I don't see any space, but I don't see where in the disco resutl there Look again. I can't even reproduce with the SHA-1 method given in XEP-0115: % echo -n 'client/pc/el/Ψ 0.9.1<client/pc/en/Psi 0.9.1<http://jabber.org/protocol/caps <http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info<http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items<http://jabber.org/protocol/muc <urn:xmpp:dataforms:softwareinfo<ip_version<ipv4<ipv6<os<Mac<os_version<10.5.1<software<Psi<software_version<0.11<' | openssl dgst -binary -sha1 | openssl enc -nopad -base64 x6aHVlwbIy3fQj0dVNR+j2xBloQ= % echo -n 'client/pc/el/Ψ 0.9.1<client/pc/en/Psi 0.9.1<http://jabber.org/protocol/caps<http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info<http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items<http://jabber.org/protocol/muc<urn:xmpp:dataforms:softwareinfo<ip_version<ipv4<ipv6<os<Mac<os_version<10.5.1<software<Psi<software_version<0.11<' | openssl dgst -binary -sha1 | openssl enc -nopad -base64 L0TyVmDns9RxZEM9mthOK3GOda0= > is cps support. It's not in the features. Why is it in the S string? Because it is required. Perhaps this is a bug in the XEP? > I have another question about this example: > how is it possible that the field ip_version which has no type (so > should be considered as text-single according to XEP-0004) can have > several <value> elements? BTW, ip_version is no standardized field of XEP-0232 (Software Information). Stephan
