On 10/19/2011 11:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Joe Hildebrand <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10/19/11 9:25 AM, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The behaviour here is pretty much by design - the PEP defaults are >>> there for mutually shared information (e.g. extended presence) between >>> people with mutual presence subs. If you want a one-sided approach, >>> using manual subscriptions instead of the caps-based magic seems like >>> a better fit. >> >> This reminds me of another idea that we had kicked around. An explicit >> subscription using a caps hash: >> >> <iq type='set' >> from='[email protected]/barracks' >> to=' [email protected]' >> id='sub1'> >> <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> >> <subscribe node='urn:xmpp:explicit' jid='[email protected]/work'/> >> <options> >> <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='submit'> >> <field var='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'> >> <value>zHyEOgxTrkpSdGcQKH8EFPLsriY=</value> >> </field> >> </x> >> </options> >> </pubsub> >> </iq> >> >> This would subscribe francisco to all of the authorized +subscribe features >> pointed to by the hash. > > That seems fine to me. > > /K > When client should send such stanza? After each connect and to each user with the "to" subscription state?
-- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
