[Standards-JIG] RE: Standards-JIG Digest, Vol 20, Issue 42
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Sep 30 08:36:34 CDT 2005
Have the authors considered any use case for the "unavailable"?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:21:42 +1000
From: Trejkaz <trejkaz at trypticon.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Flagging the Primary Resource
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <200509300821.42738.trejkaz at trypticon.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:16, Ian Paterson wrote:
> I was interested if anyone sees any reasons not to do it this way
Ah. Well, there is probably some middle ground that can save us some
If there is only one resource online, don't send the extension. If there
more than one, send it. In the case you described when resource2 comes
online with the same priority and clients might misunderstand, send the
primary flag with resource1's presence, _before_ sending resource2's
Once all that's done, you have minimal XML for most users who don't even
what a resource is, but still have trivial rules for clients to figure out
who is the primary resource.
More information about the Standards-JIG