[Standards] [E2E] Why we need a <body> element

Jonathan Schleifer js-xmpp-standards at webkeks.org
Tue Sep 30 16:42:58 UTC 2008


Am 30.09.2008 um 17:33 schrieb Dave Cridland:

> And to cover our coversation elsewhere (through that funny "Instant  
> Messaging" thing), a downside of including <body> is that a client  
> might assume it's a reasonable alternative, whereas otherwise it  
> could bounce the message (type="error") which would cause the sender  
> to re-initiate the session.

Messages with unknown stuff are simply ignored, the RFC says so IIRC.

> So yes, JS's problem is real, but the proposed cure of adding <body>  
> to IBB is worse than the disease, and I'll cheerfully admit I hadn't  
> thought this one through - sorry for jumping in like that.

It solves the problem with clients that don't know IBB, thus will just  
throw away the stanza and not warn - the user never knows he lost a  
message.

> Incidentally, both ends can check the session by using XEP-0199  
> inside the P2P XML stream. And XEP-0198 is also applicable here, and  
> much more useful than XEP-0184 on the IBB packets.

Think about small clients that only support the really necessary stuff  
to use XMPP.

--
Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080930/2409313f/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list