[Standards-JIG] Re: Avatar Image Hashes

Daniel Henninger jadestorm at nc.rr.com
Fri Dec 9 18:43:09 UTC 2005

For what it's worth, I really like it being based on image data.  Has  
a "makes sense" kind of feel to it.  All I really wanted is for the  
JEP to outright state that it's not the base64 encoded version of the  
image data, but rather the original.  =)  (for no other reason than  
to eliminate the conversation of 'who is right')


On Dec 9, 2005, at 1:12 PM, JD Conley wrote:

>> Remko Troncon wrote:
>>> There is also a problem if your client does not save the associated
> hash
>>> with the image in the cache, but re-computes the hash itself. This
>> should
>>> be avoided anyway.
>> For the future, we should call it a GUID, without telling, that it
> could
>> be a hash.
> It is quite useful as a hash of the image data if more than one person
> on the contact list has the same avatar. If it were only a GUID and  
> not
> a hash then you could not assume that the GUID from two different  
> JID's
> were the same. You'd also have to cache avatars based on JID as  
> well as
> GUID instead of just a simple flat store of hashes.
> -JD Conley

More information about the Standards mailing list