[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Ryan 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 
every feature. 

For example if 'xmpp-ftrans' was registred, and one received this:
   <c xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/caps"
      ver="0.11-dev-rev8" ext="xmpp-ftrans"/>

It could correctly assume the result of sending this:
<query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'

would be this:
<query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/bytestreams'/>
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/si'/>
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'/>
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/xhtml-im'/>


More information about the Standards mailing list