[Standards] presence priority -1 issues
dave at cridland.net
Thu Jul 31 19:47:25 UTC 2008
On Thu Jul 31 17:54:32 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu Jul 31 17:17:40 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
>>>> Moving forward, this would allow clever clients to observe that
>>>> it wasn't a IM client capable of handling calendaring requests,
>>>> but a dumb calendaring bot working on behalf of the user.
>>> Not following.
>> Clients could have an integrated calendaring app, allowing both
>> chat and calendaring traffic to happen to the same full jid.
>> Alternately, it may only do one or the other.
> Yes, but then you would only need to publish the proper <feature>.
> What makes a automated system try a certain protocol is the
> feature, not the identity. The identity automation/calender (per
> Peter example) is only needed to mark a resource as a non-IM
Right, except in the case of IM, features are advertised. But to
advertise a lack of IM, we need to change the identity, since we
don't have an IM feature.
Of course, it'd really be automation/application, or
automation/daemon, since what kinds of protocols it's an automaton
for is, as you say, down to the features advertised.
> So a clever Calendar application that also allows chat would
> probably still announce itself with a client/pc but would also set
> <feature> to support cal-dav-over-xmpp, or whatever.
Of course - but I'm somewhat against a negative feature, if there's
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards