On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:44:44PM -0700, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/22 Olivier Goffart <ogoff...@kde.org>:
>>> Why do we need to send icons URL for status? I think it will just confuse
>>> the
>>> user if each cotact has different icons for different statuses.
<snip>
>> I agree. IMO there is no reason, why should one client tell another
>> how to display it's states. I would certainly not implement (or enable
>> in client supporting this) such behavior. Noted security issue is also
>> a problem. On the other hand, if some client really used it, it would
>> have no way of knowing, whether cached images are up-to-date.
>
> This is to combat every client coming up with their own icons for other
> peoples' clients. You do not need to use the info, or provide it, but it
> is useful for the folks that believe that what client you are using matters
> to the end user.
The question here is not about the single 'this is the icon for my client'
icon. It is about the 'this is my client away', 'this is my client busy',
etc. icons. Icons which seem to only be useful in place of the user's
client's status icons. As even if you are displaying icons for the remote
contacts client you are (presumably) still showing local status icons. At
worst if you are using some sort of emblem system you can continue using
your standard emblems with whatever the custom client icon is.
Personally, I'd fight displaying client icons in pidgin entirely but not
block a patch. I'd definitely block a patch showing per-status client
icons in place of our own.
<snip>
-Etan
