[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Maciek Niedzielski machekku at uaznia.net
Wed Mar 14 03:31:47 UTC 2007


Matt Tucker wrote:
> To re-hash the idea... instead of having the fairly complex logic around
> client name, version and optional extensions, there would simply a
> presence extension that would look like the following:
> 
> <capabilities xlmns="whatever">muc pep jingle xhtml</capabilities>
> 
> The values would be short text strings maintained in the XMPP registry
> that represent full disco information.

Small detail: some XEPs define more than one feature, so XEP short names
may not be the best candidate here.

> 1) In two years time, few new extensions have been added to XMPP.

Not every new protocol can be "oficially" (as in "published as a XEP)
added to XMPP. Two main groups include private (with a very small group
of users) and proprietary extensions.

> Given the low number of new protocol extensions, I really doubt this
> would be a practical issue.

To continue the thought from above:
Let's say a group of friends wants to be able to call emergency meetings
via XMPP. They write a simple plugin to their favorite client and it
"Run To Me Protocol" and advertise it as "rtmp" extension. Or maybe
better use "x-rtmp", not to have conflicts?
At the same time, Adobe implements their rejected Real Time Messaging
Protocol jingle transport. Now even if capabilities registry would be
separate from XEPs registry, I don't think that they would bother to
register it after their XSF refused to publish their XEP. So they simply
advertise "x-rtmp", with "x-" to prevent conflicts.
Oh, do these two ext strings look the same? ;)

I don't think there is a safe way to replace unique namespaces with some
short strings, unless there is a registry that everyone wants to use and
which wants to register every (even used by one person in the whole
world) proposal. And I don't think such registry is possible...


> Waiting for Flames,

Sorry, but I just like to invent counterarguments ;)
More seriously: I really liked your (before it was "your") proposal when
it was first discussed here. But then I got convinced that it works so
well only on the paper, but not in real life. At least this is my opinion.

BTW: We could use PEP for this ;)

-- 
Maciek
 xmpp:machekku at uaznia.net



More information about the Standards mailing list