[standards-jig] disco category for clients

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Fri Sep 12 16:41:25 UTC 2003

I thought announcing capabilities (e.g. "features") was the point to 
JEP-0030 in general?  If that seems to be lacking., then we need to 
specify enough features to make a proper accounting.  Additionally, I 
really don't think it truly matters what hardware/platform my client is 
on (and if it does, there's "jabber:iq:version" to help anyway); if my 
client says it can do something, then that should be enough information, 
thankyouverymuch (-:

With that in mind, it would seem that the list of client types would 
seem redundant.  However, it is useful to have a very general 
classification of clients, which is what the proposed types provide.  I 
was thinking the types were probably too granular ("mobile" instead of 
"phone" and "handheld", or do you not hold your phone in your hand? 
(-:), and missed one important one ("bot" or "automaton").

Maybe we need only distinguish between "human" and "machine" client 
types? Or make the distinction based on the "requirements" JEPs (e.g. 
IM-Basic, IM-Advanced)?

FWIW, I am content with (more-or-less) the given list:

client/handheld   (or client/mobile)
client/phone      (or client/mobile)

-  LW

Justin Kirby wrote:

>>- handheld  [client on PDA or other small device]
>>- pc        [traditional desktop/laptop client]
>>- phone     [client on mobile phone or other telephony device]
>>- web       [browser-based client]
>Instead of client categories, why not create a capability category? 
>If I have a handheld with 96MB and 400Mhz with full color, vs a PC with
>64MB w/ 333Mhz?  Or client connection speeds, bluetooth vs dialup vs
>So instead of attempting to guess what the clients capabilities are
>based on some arbitrary naming system, why not create a system to
>identify client capabilities?
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list