On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Joe Cascio, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm bothered by the fact that most discussion seems to assume that identity > is merely a projection of XMPP's ID mechanism. Wouldn't it be better to have > someone's OpenID meta-data provide a discovery mechanism for any of several > servers that they might be contacted on? Then the XMPP address/identity > would be a lower level routing, perhaps invisible to the end user?
There are a few things which are being assumed by this thread and the one it forked off from: a/ there would be a method of discovering their presence on each of the different services at any given time, so you know what one to route to. Possible with some that are stateful, but not such things as email, sms, twitter (I don't think anyway, I'm not too sure how twitter operates). b/ if there is a way of discovering the above, the user you're trying to contact may have a preference as to which one things should be routed to, which would ideally need to be taken into account. c/ conversation context would also need to be taken into account. If a conversation started on one medium, it normally would be best to continue it on that same medium, even if a higher-priority 'route' becomes available. Not necessarily as important for private conversations, but moreso for public ones, else a chat may suddenly appear on the given serivce in the middle of a conversation. d/ invisible routing would always be preferred. This often won't be the case, for instance, if the highest priority route (if that could be determined from the above) is one that's public (twitter, blog, whatever else), you don't want to be sending them very personal messages. Even having an option for specifying the routing, with a default if none given is not ideal, as it would then be up to the sender to always take the routine into account anyway, in case it was a 'private' message, with a potentially very embarrassing result if that is forgotten. Take care, Mark.
