Hi! On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:34:10PM +0200, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Dnia 04-07-2007, śro o godzinie 21:03 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre > napisał(a): > > > base64(sha1(dave-formatted id/features)) > > Seems reasonable to me. > > I've picked this random post to reply but it does not concern this > particular post but the whole thread... > ...which I did not follow really, because I find this whole XEP and > concept of entity capabilities distributed with presence packed unneeded > and harmful. > > This XEP came out to solve a problem of jabber:iq:version storming on > the Psi client launch, which other clients blindly copied just to > show-off the remote client version at the fancy tooltip. > > So instead of pull-based mechanizm there was a push-based mechanizm > deployed. > > But I do see some inconsistency here. > We don't allow vCard hashes to be pushed with the presence. We do not > allow moods and "now-playing" to be pushed on us with the presence > packet, but we gladly allow unrequested capabilities to be pushed with > the presence?? More then, we're going to REQUIRE them?
w.r.t. to vcard, this is just a small snipped from a recent debug log: 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | <presence from="xxxx" to="yyyy"> 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | <status>i'm here</status> 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | <priority>1</priority> 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | <c node="http://gaim.sf.net/caps"; ver="2.0.0beta5" xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/caps"/> 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | <x xmlns="vcard-temp:x:update"/> 2007-06-30 13:12:30 +0200 | </presence> Quite some noise I get there with the presence, I completly agree with you on the following: > Excuse me. I've subscribed your PRESENCE information. I didn't ask for > your mood, tune, avatar nor capabilities. If I would need them, I will > ask and you may allow me to have them. > There's nothing special about the caps, that these would require special > privileges. I think this is a good point and well spotted :-) ! > And what's more - we invented a way for me to subscribe for all this > kinds of additional information. Using everyone's favorite PubSub. > Why don't we reuse it somehow? > > We didn't have PEP/PubSub deployed at all when we invented XEP-0115, but > we do have now and for sure can do better now. I, as client developer, would really like if PEP/PubSub became more widely-used. Recently when reading this list I became the feeling that PEP is being avoided. Eg. by the common "ironic joke": 'lets use PEP for this'. PEP/PubSub has many good applications IMO. And if you ask me, PEP is IMO essential enough to go into XEP-0073 (Basic IM Protocol Suite). (Well, it will have to go in there anyway if it becomes neccessary to promote client capabilities.) And I think announcing capabilities seems to be a great application of PEP/PubSub. I can already imagine the client setting: [X] Allow others to subscribe to your client's capabilities. or: [X] Don't publish this client's capabilities. Just my 1.9999999... Cents Greetings, Robin
