Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > >>> The XEP could also specify that if a client sets the value of the >>> 'node' attribute to "$" then it MUST NOT include an 'ext' attribute. >> Not sure about this, it really depends on how ext is actually used in >> the wild, as Joe said. I'd be tempted to leave this somewhat open, at >> least for now. It could be that we could grow a set of extensions of >> commonly co-implemented features, bearing no actual relation to client >> plugins, and cut down traffic that way. But such things require quite >> a bit of research. > > Ext is used in the wild. My initial reaction is that it is still > needed, but on further thought, I can't see why. I suggest that perhaps > we should add a attribute that looks like: > > hash='MD5' > > and make it mutually-exclusive with ext.
Right. As I understand it, the 'hash' is a representation of all the features the client supports as it is currently operating (i.e., the "base" features and all the features associated with various plugins and extensions and so on). So AFAICS it doesn't make sense to force the hash into the existing 'ver' or 'ext' attributes, since the meaning is so different. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
