[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC, PEP and caps. Was: MUC presence issues

Remko Troncon remko at el-tramo.be
Tue Oct 10 09:27:36 UTC 2006

> I still have to do a bit of catch-up on the discussion on PEP, but I
> don't like the implicit subscription to nodes using caps, that is
> suggested in section 9 of XEP-0163.

The caps in the presence make perfect sense to me: it is a way of  
saying that my client is interested in all avatar information that it  
can get. It gives an easy way for a client to get extended presence  
information, without needing to implement the full subscription  
protocols, which is a lot harder than it sounds (there's a chain of  
things that need to be done, with possible errors in between, and  
subscription management issues). Moreover, AFAICT, it is the *only*  
decent way of guaranteeing you get the information from *all* your  
contacts at all time.

If you are a person that likes more fine-grained control over  
subscriptions (i'm fairly certain almost no IM client will be), then  
you can always omit the capabilities broadcast, and do manual  


More information about the Standards mailing list