[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Wed Mar 14 22:07:24 UTC 2007


On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Matt Tucker wrote:

>> 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? ;)
> A good hypothetical argument, but I don't think it's a huge practical
> issue. A number of reasons:
>  * I haven't seen many clients doing a ton of proprietary stuff that
> needs caps. In general, not many new extensions are getting created  
> on a
> yearly basis.

Last count, SAPO Messenger had 5 "short" codes for things like:

  * SIP integration (audio and video);
  * Flash-based applications synchronization protocol;
  * SMS support;
  * Small Audible (flash icons) support (very very popular in PT);
  * One-to-many file transfer (internal only, testing).

We use CAPS and cache them aggressively. We haven't seen this as a  

Best regards,
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
Jabber ID: melo at simplicidade.org
Use Jabber!

More information about the Standards mailing list