[Standards] XEP-0115: version 1.5 revisited
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Tue Nov 20 03:26:28 UTC 2007
>> ...coming back. You cache the name, and add the version.
>> if the name string contains the version string, a'la 'Exodus 0.9.1'
>> version '0.9.1' you just use the name unmodified.)
> Hmm. What if you have this?
> <presence from='romeo at montague.lit/orchard'>
> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'
> <identity category='client' name='Exodus 0.9.1' type='pc'/>
> Then do you display the following?
> Software: Exodus 0.9.1 0.9.1
"If the name string contains the version string..."
strcasestr(clientname,version) == 1
Thus, you just use 'Exodus 0.9.1' (the name field) since the version
string is a substring of the name. I agree it's not necessarily
ideal, but this is how many of us deal with things ANYWAY when sorting
out version information.
I still think, regardless, if we are adding version into presence, it
is silly to kill the old ver field, then put the value into a new v
field. If we aren't adding version into presence, that's another
thing, but I would expect that users will request this -- showing what
version of a client the other person is on has been one of our own
I agree there is no solid engineering reason for it, but it is
functionality clients presently can have, and removing functionality
will always generate end-user bug report/feature request tickets. And
sometimes features are driven by 'what users want' rather than by any
solid engineering goal. (Is there a real engineering benefit to
avatars? No, but users demonstrably wanted them.) Just my $0.02,
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/
More information about the Standards