[Standards] unavailable presence from bare JID

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Jun 1 21:39:26 UTC 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/9/09 11:51 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/9/09 11:47 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
>> On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:26:10 Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>> I was trying to understand how current components and clients behave ...
>>> particularly since psi and others would have already faced and worked
>>> around/solved this issue.
>> Psi doesn't try to detect the type of contact to know if presence without a 
>> resource could happen.  I'm willing to be no client does that, actually..
>>
>> Besides, a transport contact could actually send a resource, and probably some 
>> of them do.  I don't think it's fair to assume a transport would always send 
>> presence without a resource.  So, a client has to be prepared to accept both.  
>> I don't see much point in having special handling depending on contact type.
>>
>> I agree with Robin, that the RFC should at least clarify what it means to have 
>> presence from no resource.  Probably it should just be treated as a resource 
>> of 0-length, that does not overshadow other resources from the same bare jid.  
>> I think this would describe current practice.  
> 
> +1

Done in my working copy.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkokSo4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzOPACcDq5k0a6gXaApbq2CugOfBJex
VH8AoN0H+b13PfeMNvw/Uk5hJRlg2wjC
=bWSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list