[Standards] XEP-0115: version 1.5 revisited
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Nov 8 23:58:23 UTC 2007
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Yes it seems a bit funny to have a 'v' attribute:
> As usual, Rachel is the voice of reason.
I know! I tried to convince her to run for XMPP Council but she wasn't
buying it. :(
> I don't mind her proposal;
Well either we're backward-compatible or we define a new namespace, at
which point people will send both, at which point we've got too many
bytes in our presence traffic. Ick.
> however, I still don't think the algorithm needs to be extensible. If
> we pick one and stick to it:
Right. So SHA-1 forever. If we want something else, we define a new
protocol. Call it the SHA2K problem.
> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'
Er, that's for xmlns='urn:xmpp:caps', the non-backward-compatible
protocol that we won't pursue.
For xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps' I think we'd have:
> 1.3 clients will disco to node http://exodus.jabberstudio.org/#0.9.1.
> 1.5 clients will disco to node 8RovUdtOmiAjzj+xI7SK5BCw3A8=.
> Yes, I
> still think the queries need a node.
We did that in 1.3 so we should do it in 1.5. Backward compatible.
> My new use case for that is that I
> might want to send different folks different caps, or different caps
> when I join a room or something.
> This has the downside of every implementation for the near future having
> to implement listening for two different nodes, which could be avoided
> if the has was in ver and the version was in v.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards