[Standards] XEP-0115 is harmful and should be deferred

[Daniel Noll]

On Friday 06 July 2007 22:19, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2007, at 13:06, Daniel Noll wrote:
> > But mobile client users and authors are still going to object to
> > receiving
> > data they didn't ask for, especially if it's the same size as what was
> > already being sent in the presence. :-)
>
> Remember that if the server supports the caps optimisation you'll
> only receive caps when it changes, because it'll be stripped out of
> subsequent presence packets to you.

He'll still get a cap flood on login though, unless we can optimise that too.

But I suspect mobile users will eventually use gateway tricks to reduce their 
bandwidth instead of relying on specs being tailored for their requirements.

As time goes forward, more people's mobiles are on unlimited data accounts, 
and their bandwidth is increasing (256k on a phone is doable by EDGE, which 
is not even considered to be 3G.)  The importance of saving bandwidth for the 
few guys not on thse plans will be like optimising a web site for a 56k modem 
user -- nobody will even think about it, and they probably shouldn't.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070707/59b1b416/attachment.pgp