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: > > > Hello > > > > 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. > What exactly do you want to pass along? > > > > I might want to send a message to > > specific computer out of the connected ones. > > See above. The name attribute can contain the description that the > user chooses. > > From XEP-0030: > > "... and MAY possess a 'name' attribute specifying a > natural-language name for the entity." > > Please complain about the lack of i8n on another thread ;) > > > > I might want to know which > > resource I run commands on (let's say with my own account but > > different > > resource, to disconnect it from MUC or so). > > See above. > > I'm not saying that talking to a specific resource is not important > or useful, I'm just saying that using the resource to name > connections is wrong and we have better *standard* ways to do it. > > Best regards, -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
