On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:52:23 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:15:16 -0600 > > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Pavel Simerda wrote: > >>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:29:32 +0200 (CEST) > >>> "Marcus Lundblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi. > >>>> > >>>> I saw that the use-cases of XEP-0231 has been removed along with > >>>> the service discovery features. > >>> I believe we just lost the service discovery on the way. But it > >>> will be the same case as with XHTML-IM where the discovery is not > >>> mandatory. > >>> > >>> (E.g. you can't discover if you don't have a presence, it maybe > >>> stored offine and you don't know the client features yet.) > >>> > >>> I'm for putting the feature back if Peter agrees and for making > >>> the discovery optional. > >> I think the service discovery features are best defined in the > >> specs that use BoB, such as XHTML-IM and file transfer, which is > >> why I removed them from XEP-0231. > > > > Ok, I didn't notice this change was intentional. What about a short > > informational section when there's time for it? > > Hmm. Do we really need those special service-discovery features? > Perhaps all we need now is some text that says "don't include [only] > cid: URIs unless the recipient supports BoB". The reason we had the > disco features is that we didn't want to spam people with in-band > binary unless they said that was OK, but now we're pretty much > forcing you to send the cid: URI and then the recipient can decide if > they want to retrieve the binary. > > /psa > That's what your original Service-Discovery section was about, no? As this is easier, I'm for allowing clients to handle URIs uniformly. And for announcing support for BoB in one Discovery Feature. This means you would just add back the Disco section :). Other suggestions from anyone? Pavel -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
