[Standards] adding body as RECOMMENDED field for PEP-protocols?
mridul at sun.com
Sat Jun 23 16:00:17 UTC 2007
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 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.
Yes, not implict subscription.
I assumed both are supported ?
> --Joe Hildebrand
More information about the Standards