[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

Curtis King 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  
> they
> 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.

moving on...


More information about the Standards mailing list