[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Daniel Noll daniel at noll.id.au
Sat Mar 17 09:19:22 UTC 2007

On Saturday 17 March 2007 14:10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Why??? Just make each ext mean the same thing and change the ext string
> if the feature changes. Better to change the ext string than the node
> string!

I didn't like the idea of having to invent N ext strings for N protocol-level 
features, basically.

If you're going to keep the meaning of an ext string over multiple versions of 
one application, you might as well share it across all applications and save 
even more space in the cache.  Or at least that's how it seems from here.

It's true that we might have namespacing issues when two people invent a 
custom extension at the same time, but we already have that problem right now 
if two people develop a plugin for the same client and happen to name their 
ext string the same.  Or is it possible to have multiple top-level cap 
containers so that plugins can namespace themselves away from the namespace 
of the client's caps?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070317/56d4f2dd/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list