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,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
