cbas at screaming3d.com
Tue May 6 00:32:21 UTC 2003
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:59:48PM +0200, Ralph Meijer wrote:
>>Further, avatar information has nothing to do with user presence. You can go
>>offline and still have an avatar. Also, you can change your avatar when not
>>altering your presence.
>BTW, this was recently (as in yesterday) reinforced in the XMPP
>Internet-Drafts, to wit:
> (Note: a user's client SHOULD NOT send a presence update to broadcast
> information that changes independently of the user's presence and
>draft-ietf-xmpp-im-11, Section 4.1
And why is avatar information not part of your presence?
Well what exactly *is* part of your presence? Only the old
priority/status/mode? Of course not. That's naive, right?
Avatars are very much like the status message in a person's presence.
They both change independantly from the other presence information.
So the question is, how much can we throw out of <presence> ? Presence
is just another pubsub scheme, albeit hardwired into the Jabber protocol.
Are we not willing and/or able to change to the <presence> protocol?
Well then fuck the presence protocol, let's use pubsub for everything.
All we need is addressing, messaging, storage, and pubsub. Right?
Food for thought.
Well I have not gone crazy.
What I'm saying is: don't use pubsub just because you can. It's not
always the best idea to break compatibility.
I'm all for progress, but let's not forget that we have actual people
using existing software in real situations.
If we are going to rewrite a lot of code and specs, atleast make sure we
don't break anything.
More information about the Standards