[Standards-JIG] Re: LAST CALL: JEP-0172 (User Nickname)
trejkaz at trypticon.org
Tue May 2 22:01:12 UTC 2006
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 03:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Remko Troncon wrote:
> > On 28 Apr 2006, at 20:42, JEP Editor wrote:
> >> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for JEP-0172 (User
> >> Nickname).
> > I'm not sure i like the following sentence in Section 4.5: "If a client
> > does not support JEP-0060 or the subset thereof specified in JEP-0163,
> > it MAY send one <message/> stanza to each of its contacts, containing
> > the updated nickname". I'm affraid clients will be getting unsolicited
> > information, which is exactly what we wanted to avoid by introducing
> > PEP. I would rather have the JEP be strict: no PEP, no nickname updates.
Could a client simply declare a nickname feature if they want them the old
way? That way they're soliciting the information, and if they don't want it
they don't declare support for the feature.
> Yes, at some point we need to "bite the bullet" and tell people to use
> pubsub/PEP. I'm just not sure exactly when that point is...
Whereas it's true that unsolicited messages are a bit annoying, and a waste of
bandwidth, in this kind of situation the unsolicited messages might actually
convince client authors to implement PEP, in the same way that spam email has
slowly encouraged people to authenticate their mail servers.
Email: trejkaz at trypticon.org
Jabber ID: trejkaz at trypticon.org
Web site: http://trypticon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards