[Standards] [E2E] Why we need a <body> element

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Sep 30 10:33:20 CDT 2008


On Tue Sep 30 16:15:10 2008, Remko Tronçon wrote:
> > I disagree - I think using <iq/> is probably the wrong thing to  
> do a lot of
> > the time. But this is almost besides the point.
> 
> I would like to hear why, but not necessarily in this thread.
> 
> 
I'll bore you some other time, then. :-)


> Anyway, if we generalize the fact that, when a resource goes away  
> and
> it suddenly is replaced by another, I still don't really see a
> problem. In this case, the receiving client may receive a few  
> packets
> (which it will drop, and optionally show a warning, although I don't
> see any reason for bothering the user about it), but after that the
> sender will immediately stop sending and report a problem to the
> sending user (and optionally, send an error through Jingle to the
> receiving entity).

And to cover our coversation elsewhere (through that funny "Instant  
Messaging" thing), a downside of including <body> is that a client  
might assume it's a reasonable alternative, whereas otherwise it  
could bounce the message (type="error") which would cause the sender  
to re-initiate the session.

So yes, JS's problem is real, but the proposed cure of adding <body>  
to IBB is worse than the disease, and I'll cheerfully admit I hadn't  
thought this one through - sorry for jumping in like that.

Incidentally, both ends can check the session by using XEP-0199  
inside the P2P XML stream. And XEP-0198 is also applicable here, and  
much more useful than XEP-0184 on the IBB packets.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade


More information about the Standards mailing list