[Standards] Re: [jdev] XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities

Mridul Mridul.Muralidharan at Sun.COM
Tue Jul 3 23:19:12 UTC 2007

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>>> Forgot to add, change name from ver & ext to verh and exth ?
>>> Why?
>> Conflict with existing clients - too many of them in the wild dont use
>> these semantics.
> Others have already responded to this, but just to reinforce, I *did*
> talk about backward compatibility.  Existing clients would continue to
> work just fine. New clients just have to be able to detect other new
> clients, to know if they are supposed to be able to check the hash. 
> Presumably, new clients could choose by policy to ignore un-hashed caps
> from old clients.

Not sure if anyone addressed the actual I was thinking of (need to read
rest of thread).

Essentially, how would 'new' clients know is something exhibited in ver
or ext is hash or 'old' value ? Aren't those identifiers not expected to
be opaque (though consistent) ?

Considering an ext of "my_ext 1233ab" and "#hash1 #hash2" exhibited by
two clients - how would the reciever know what is hashed as per 'new'
idea and what is 'old' ver/ext ?
In first case, it wont hash properly to what is exhibited by disco -
which might make the 'new' client think it is hitting a problem client
instead of a old client.

- Mridul

PS : new -> client based on proposed idea, old -> client conforming to
current xep.

More information about the Standards mailing list