[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Joe Hildebrand 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.

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the Standards mailing list