Ralph Meijer wrote:
Hi,Not sure where to inject this, so this is as good as any other place. On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:05 -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:On May 31, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Ian Paterson wrote:Actually, once PEP starts to be more deployed (hopefully later this year), I'd like to remove/deprecate the non-PEP parts of XEP-80.Yes. In fact maybe that should be done now - to avoid (new) implementations of the non-PEP parts? As things stand, if you have two online resources in different physical locations, then they will indicate that your corporeal body is in two different places at the same time!I'm ok with that, pending the outcome of this discussion.I've always thought of the specs we now view as extended presence specs to hold data formats for certain types of information. How to transport them being secondary.
You make a good point. They're really just data formats. What you do with those formats is up to you. We might prefer that you send them over pubsub rather than presence (for reasons often discussed on this list) but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to include them in presence or in a message.
For example, it might be very useful to attach a location to a message that denotes the location of whatever else is sent in the same message. Maybe a photo that has been taken, and you send both a link to the photo and a location description. Like example 4.3 in version 1.3 of XEP-0080.
Right. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
