2007/6/15, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yes. But with presence, you probably know about your other resources.
D'oh - this is obvious but somehow I didn't think of that. Thank you for pointing that out. Now I see RAP more usable, because the priorities don't seem so magical. I hope different clients will use this information, to answer the question "which device would ring if someone called now".
> - Application name registration was removed from XEP-0168. I think > there should be some kind of standard convention for app names. XML namespaces are not good enough? > Otherwise clients may use any names with Entity Capabilites (ext > attribute). Therefore a same name could mean something different for > each active resource of my roster, which would require an IQ for each. > Why not define a standard name for each XEP like "xep-0167", or > shorter "0167" for previously used "jingle-audio"? Maybe a prefix for > private extensions? I *think* we don't need the appnames (just one more mapping for clients to remember) and can use XML namespaces instead. If not, we can always add the appnames back in. I was just trying to simplify things.
You are right, from one viewpoint ;) Appnames are redundant, and would increase the registrar's workload. IMHO, I think appnames would be a nice implementation shortcut. Otherwise a client must do bookkeeping for client software/extname/namespace mapping, and ask the namespace when an unknown ext comes in. A fixed appname/namespace mapping would be easier to code. -lauri
