[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu Mar 15 03:42:11 UTC 2007


Daniel,

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. :)

Thanks,
Matt

> -----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 
> 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.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 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 mailing list