[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
jadestorm at nc.rr.com
Thu Mar 15 03:33:33 UTC 2007
Maybe I'm just not "getting it" but when I looked over entity
capabilities for PyAIMt and PyICQt, I was trying to pick a good way
to determine if the client supported XHTML or not before bothering
them with it. What I found was something that didn't seem to have
any rules.. just just because something said xhtml didn't mean that
it was the xhtml support I was expecting. Could have meant anything.
Looking over some of the examples and such and discussion going on
here, I'm starting to wonder if I simply don't understand the point.
I notice that like Psi specifies psi-im.org/caps or something like
that. Am I to understand that capabilities mean nothing across
applications? Seeing psi-im.org/caps seems to imply that it's only
capabilities as psi has decided to define. What good is that to a
transport or another client?
Of course, at the moment I can't even see the extensions page to read
over the XEP again. Some sort of database error. I also don't know
if things have changed since the last time I looked. But on a base
level, if someone offers up the capability ... xhtml. How am I to
know that that really means xhtml? What about if they decide to use
xht as the short version of the capability instead of xhtml because
they don't like over 3 character caps? Are there rules in place that
I'm not aware of?
Generally I love the "protocol" aspect of it, but it's the actual
content that makes little sense to me. So I don't really like or
dislike it. From my perspective it was just a pointless XEP and I
moved on. (at least for my purposes)
I'm hoping to be corrected here. ;D Just so you all know... I
imagine I'm just missing some key concept of it.
On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Ian Paterson wrote:
> Rachel Blackman wrote:
>> In the end, caps is one of our protocols that is actually both a)
>> sufficient for the task, and b) reasonably well-adopted. Given
>> that, I think time and effort is better spent on other things
>> rather than taking a wheel which works and spending that time
>> reinventing it just because you don't like the tread pattern. :)
> The existing tread pattern is arguably better too.
> - Ian
More information about the Standards