[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)
cking at mumbo.ca
Thu May 14 19:59:36 UTC 2009
On 14-May-09, at 12:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> The only way that interop would break here is if
> clients are treating versions as something other than opaque, which
> are not supposed to do.
> Please explain.
You just did, opaque means there is room for misinterpretation (This
thread offers some proof ;-)). I was just trying to get people to
consider that cost against the flexibility an opaque value offers.
More information about the Standards