[Standards] XEP-0115: version 1.5 revisited

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Tue Nov 20 03:26:28 UTC 2007


>> ...coming back.  You cache the name, and add the version.   
>> (Optionally,
>> if the name string contains the version string, a'la 'Exodus 0.9.1'  
>> and
>> 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'
>     node='http://code.google.com/p/exodus/'
>     v='0.9.1'
>     ver='8RovUdtOmiAjzj+xI7SK5BCw3A8='/>
> </presence>
>
> AND...
>
> <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  
most-common requests.

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,  
though. :)

-- 
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/





More information about the Standards mailing list