[Standards] adding body as RECOMMENDED field for PEP-protocols?

[Joe Hildebrand]

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> A body inside the namespace for the particular PEP node is  
>> perfectly fine, if it makes sense for that namespace.  If a client  
>> doesn't know about that namespace, it's not going to add the  
>> +notify capability, nor subscribe to the node directly, so the  
>> notification should never come to a client that doesn't know how  
>> to process it; "process" here may mean just pull out the body  
>> element in the appropriate namespace and display it in some  
>> interesting way.
>> --Joe Hildebrand
>
> user subscribes to a pep node, and later on a different resource  
> comes along on a different client which does not understand pep.
> So you can have pep data getting pushed to resources which do not  
> understand pep.

Only if you're using explicit subscriptions, not if you're using  
implicit caps-based subs, right?  I see the use case now.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand