[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Daniel Henninger jadestorm at nc.rr.com
Thu Mar 15 14:03:52 UTC 2007

Hrm.  Thanks Remko!  That's very helpful!  Is the intention of this  
XEP to do away with "just announcing your capabilities via disco"?   
Like should I expect to no longer get useful results from a standard  
disco info query?  Is the client expected to duplicate the fact that  
it supports muc both in the capabilities node and in it's ... "base"  
node?  Or is it something that I would really need to do something like:

--> Got Presence of person I haven't seen before
  does it have capabilities?
  Yes?  Do a capabilities disco inquiry
  No?  Do a standard disco inquiry

It is a tad tidier to have them glomped together into one node I guess.


On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:

>> Unless one of the original authors volunteer, I might have a try at
>> adding some clarifications to the XEP (if I can, I haven't read the
>> XEP in a while now).
> I quickly threw an 'Intuition' section together, which I would put
> before the exact protocol details.
>      http://el-tramo.be/files/xmpp/caps_intuition.txt
> I'm not sure if it actually clarifies anything :-)
> Anyway, one of the open issues that I brought up a year ago and that
> still needs clarifying is: can I assume that an extension name maps to
> the same features for clients with the same node but a different
> version.
> cheers,
> Remko

More information about the Standards mailing list