Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Ian Paterson wrote:
Hmm, going forward, are the clients that most people use going to
continue showing these icons? Is this a feature we need to care about?
Even though I'm one of the small group of people involved in the XMPP
community, I really don't care what client my contacts are using. Will
there ever be mass demand for this feature? On the rare occasions
where people are interested, they'll probably be perfectly happy to
explicitly ask their client to find out the other user's client
version on a case-by-case basis.
In general, I agree with you, but this was one of the reasons people
were doing version floods, which is why we came up with 115 in the first
place.
In specific, I have a particular use case (that I can't talk much about,
unfortunately) that absolutely relies the node being distinguishable.
Changing the meaning of node breaks backwards compatibility, whereas
nothing else in the current proposal does. If there's no good reason to
break backward compatibility, I suggest that we avoid it.
I am not sure what was decided as the final design for the spec
regarding hashing, but moving from existing scheme of ver & ext also
breaks backward compatibility.
The xep was a draft standard and there are multiple implementations
already released - of server & client which rely on this and use these
semantics for both documented (other xep's) and undocumented features.
Validation of caps data using hash is invaluable (esp for pep), but I am
not very happy about breaking compatibility with existing clients and
servers.
Regards,
Mridul
