On 16 March 2017 at 12:31, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > On 8 March 2017 at 17:50, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: >> Council agrees that this needs more list discussion on list on whether >> this should be an inplace upgrade to XEP-0115. If it becomes a new XEP >> depending XEPs should be updated to a more generalized wording like >> "use XEP-0030 or any caching mechanism like ecaps2" >> > > I don't think it does, actually. > > More specifically, I think that specifications ought to be talking in > terms of XEP-0030 features, and this spec (and '115) are simply > mechanisms for caching the features, and irrelevant to the > specifications that use the underlying features. >
Been rubbish and didn't answer the thought on whether this ought to be an update to '115 or not. It shouldn't: 1) There are known interop concerns with '115 clients which only use one '115 caps in a given presence stanza. 2) I recall introducing the new, hash-based, caps, and finding it very difficult to explain to people that there were two, radically different, variants of '115 - and typical clients needed to support both. (1) means we cannot, unfortunately, use the same qualified element for a new '115. (2) means I'd like to keep the old specification around, even if we're aiming to deprecate. Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
