[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
hildjj at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 04:06:14 UTC 2007
Of course I'm biased on this topic, so discount what I have to say.
Obviously, I think that caps is the simplest thing that could meet
the requirements spelled out in XEP-115.
On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:16 AM, 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.
None of these protocols are end-to-end, but hop-by-hop. The main
reason for this is that they aren't short-latency enough to be able
to have two client programs interact in direct fashion. Your email
client doesn't show different buttons or menu items based on who you
are talking to (modulo a couple of things like digsig and HTML, which
are really heuristic rather than client-capability driven). I can't
think of a widely-deployed standard protocol that has really nailed
end-to-end capabilities; as a matter of fact, I usually hold this up
as an advantage of XMPP.
More information about the Standards