2010/9/17 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé :
>> In OMA-pres-rules, the order of "" elements is important as
>> rules are checked from top to botton until one rule matches (its
>> node).
>>
>
> According to OMA-TS-XDM-Core sec 6.6.2.3 first you need to compute all
> the applicable rules and then decide which o
> In OMA-pres-rules, the order of "" elements is important as
> rules are checked from top to botton until one rule matches (its
> node).
>
According to OMA-TS-XDM-Core sec 6.6.2.3 first you need to compute all
the applicable rules and then decide which one will apply, so the
order doesn't really
2010/9/17 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé :
>> AFAIK there is a new condition introduced by OMA (OMA = IM/Presence
>> for Mobile Operators obsessed with PushToTalk and private IP
>> networks).
>> That new condition is called "other-identity" [*] and its meaning is
>> that any URI matches it.
>>
>
> Any URI wh
> AFAIK there is a new condition introduced by OMA (OMA = IM/Presence
> for Mobile Operators obsessed with PushToTalk and private IP
> networks).
> That new condition is called "other-identity" [*] and its meaning is
> that any URI matches it.
>
Any URI which doesn't match any identity condition.
2010/9/17 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé :
> I wouldn't match that rule if any of these two cases, but someone
> might think that "the lack of conditions (condition element children)
> means that it's true always". Any thoughts on this?
AFAIK there is a new condition introduced by OMA (OMA = IM/Presence
for
Hi Iñaki,
>
> Even if you get a good conclusion for this question, the problem would
> be: will your xcap server, your SIP presence server and all your SIP
> clients sharing the same account interpret such empty
> element in the same way? If not, you have a problem (as all the
> SIMPLE/XCAP implem
2010/9/17 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé :
> Now, section 10 says the following: "A rule matches if all conditions
> contained as child elements in the element of a rule
> evaluate to TRUE." every children defined for a condition element
> (identity, validity, sphere and others) define a min-occurs of 0, so
Hi,
Yesterday I came across the following doubt regarding pres-rules
documents and conditions:
According to the schema on RFC4745, the conditions element has a
min-coccurs of 0, so someone could add a rule without any condition at
all.
Now, section 10 says the following: "A rule matches if all c
