[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu Mar 15 03:42:11 UTC 2007
Heh, I think you got confused because the XEP is needlessly complicated.
Those ext values have no semantic meaning -- you're basically supposed
to disco them to figure out what the client really supports, along with
a base disco against the client name/version. You'll see all the details
once you can access the XEP.
In reply to everyone else: the complexity of the XEP still rubs me the
wrong way, but we happily cave to community pressure. If there's no
appetite to revisit caps, so be it. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Henninger
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
> 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
> 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. :)
> > +1
> > The existing tread pattern is arguably better too.
> > - Ian
More information about the Standards