[standards-jig] gateway handling of legacy contact lists
pcurtis at terrapin.com
Sat Dec 13 11:44:44 UTC 2003
On Saturday, December 13, 2003, at 06:36 AM, maqi at jabberstudio.org
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
>> I agree with that statement. Transports should mirror the remote
>> -- not import them selectively.
>> The usage of jabber:x:roster is going to make it more confusing and
>> difficult for people to register with transports. (And to some degree
>> more difficult for client developers.)
> At last! Someone else looking at the problem from a user's point of
> :-). Thanks, I thought I was the only one ;-).
> I understand why protocol people don't want to embrace the
> hack. But I don't understand why they say "jabber:x:roster is optimal"
> it's obviously NOT.
I agree. The jabber:x:roster is not the optimal solution. However,
JEP-0100 Section 8 does allow for the use of presence with the 'type'
attribute 'subscribed'. Seeing as that is how most of the transports
work today, I don't suspect that will change.
However, Joe Hildebrand's suggestion of having the transports do a
better job maintaining the roster on the Jabber side make sense to me.
I do know that Yahoo does send presence packets (as the roster is
received) but I never "clean up". That is something I will investigate.
More information about the Standards