[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Wed Mar 14 22:14:28 UTC 2007


Hi,

On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Tony Finch wrote:

> I'm somewhat baffled by the arguments against Matt's suggestion. It's
> basically the same design as used by many IETF protocols (SMTP, IMAP,
> POP3) which has worked quite well for over a decade. In particular,  
> client
> developers don't need to care about caps they don't support, and if  
> they
> are working on a new capability while it is under development  
> (before it
> has a stable cap name) then they are already committed to following a
> changing specification.

I would say that it hasn't worked all that well. you need to register  
to have a "short string" and that is a complex procedure. With caps,  
I can develop something today and have it live on the net tomorrow  
knowing that I won't mess up other clients.

If two IMAP server implementations decide to use XSEARCH for a new  
kind of search, a client implementor cannot target that because they  
might mean different things...

This kind of extensibility and low barrier for entry of new features  
and protocols is extremely useful and powerful and I would hate to  
let it go.

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