[Standards-JIG] RE: Standards-JIG Digest, Vol 20, Issue 42

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Sep 30 08:36:34 CDT 2005


Have the authors considered any use case for the "unavailable"?

Jean-Louis

-----Original Message-----
Message: 9
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
> instead.

Ah.  Well, there is probably some middle ground that can save us some
presence 
space.

If there is only one resource online, don't send the extension.  If there
are 
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 
presence.

Once all that's done, you have minimal XML for most users who don't even
know 
what a resource is, but still have trivial rules for clients to figure out 
who is the primary resource.

TX





More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list