[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
ryan at evine.ca
Wed Mar 14 18:57:57 UTC 2007
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 11:06, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> I think it is important to notice that "ext" doesn't mean "extension" as
> in "XEP", but as in "client's basic feature set extension". So the fact
> that there is no "xmpp-xhtml" in "ext" wouldn't automatically mean that
> this client doesn't support XHTML-IM. This could be one of two: a) it
> really doesn't support it, or b) it supports it always (without on/off
> option), so it is not advertised as caps extension.
or c) it supports it, but is advertised via some other ext entry, and a disco
must be done (i.e. how it works now).
> And if we decide to drop this "ext" interpretation, then we'd have to
...change a 'stable' standard in an incompatible way! Definitely not!!
I guess I wasn't very clear that the idea was 'xmpp-X' would map to a
predefined set of features, not to have an xmpp-X (short name) for each and
For example if 'xmpp-ftrans' was registred, and one received this:
It could correctly assume the result of sending this:
would be this:
More information about the Standards