[standards-jig] gateway handling of legacy contact lists

Paul Curtis 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 
wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
>
>> I agree with that statement.  Transports should mirror the remote 
>> roster
>> -- 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 
> view
> :-). Thanks, I thought I was the only one ;-).
>
> I understand why protocol people don't want to embrace the 
> type=subscribed
> hack. But I don't understand why they say "jabber:x:roster is optimal" 
> as
> 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.

Paul




More information about the Standards mailing list