[Standards] [E2E] Why we need a <body> element
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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Standards