On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:12:49 +0100 Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:33:59 +0100 > > Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote: > >>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:30:10PM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote: > >>>>>> The reasons given to use a well-known resource can be solved > >>>>>> better using > >>>>>> other methods. > >>>>> > >>>>> You omit the reason the resource name carries an information. > >>>>> When I see > >>>>> someone connected with resource 'mobile', I know I should not > >>>>> spam him > >>>>> with large messages. > >>>> IMHO, you should use caps for that. > >>>> > >>>> That's the proper way to solve it. Use an identity client/phone > >>>> or client/handheld. > >>> > >>> Then you will need caps containing any string to show to user, > >>> since resource can carry any information. > >> > >> name attribute of the identity? > > > > Doesn't it break the purpose of the caps? I originally thought the > > authors wanted to have a reasonable number of different caps to > > cache at the servers. > > Yes, it does. > > For each name, the hash will be different. > > Best regards, I expected at least.... "Yes it does but we don't care." :) Pavel -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
