[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,
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.
FWIW, I am content with (more-or-less) the given list:
client/handheld (or client/mobile)
client/phone (or client/mobile)
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