[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0232 (Software Information)

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 22:44:44 UTC 2009


On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Olivier Goffart <ogoffart at kde.org>:
>> Why do we need to send icons URL for status? I think it will just  
>> confuse the
>> user if each cotact has different icons for different statuses.
>>
>> I see also that as a potential security issue that can reveal  
>> user's presence
>> + IP (while following the links)
>>
>
> I agree. IMO there is no reason, why should one client tell another
> how to display it's states. I would certainly not implement (or enable
> in client supporting this) such behavior. Noted security issue is also
> a problem. On the other hand, if some client really used it, it would
> have no way of knowing, whether cached images are up-to-date.

This is to combat every client coming up with their own icons for  
other peoples' clients.  You do not need to use the info, or provide  
it, but it is useful for the folks that believe that what client you  
are using matters to the end user.

> Other thing: every client can have different sizes of icons. I imagine
> one could solve this by offering big images for client to scale down.
> Now we can download 50+ (probably more) 128x128px images every
> startup.
>
> So.. I think it is nice reinterpretation of XEP-92, but these icons
> are way too useless.

We should specify a suggested size, and that you MUST cache and use  
HEAD requests to check cache if you're going to use the icons.





More information about the Standards mailing list