[Standards] Syncing legacy contact list
bcully at gmail.com
Sun Jun 6 23:06:37 UTC 2010
On Jun 6, 2010, at 16:22, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I'm not opposing that, I would like to see the current XEPs being fixed/improved in a way that doesn't require structural changes. I think the suggestions made by both Brian and myself will make the existing XEPs "work" as intended, without changing them in a structural way. Low-hanging fruits? Can we simple pick one (or another alternative to the same extend), incorporate that as a guideline in the existing XEPs, and continue work on the sub-roster idea in a parallel effort?
Actually, I'm a big fan of the remote roster as it would make a number of interactions simpler and work in a more standard way. The only reason I used the approach of caching was that roster item exchange is already supported by a number of clients, where remote rosters never really got out of the "wouldn't it be cool" phase, and I needed something that worked now.
Perhaps it's low hanging fruit to call out the caching system, but IMHO it seems obvious and I don't see any need to way the XEP down with it as a use case. I'd much rather see work go into remote rosters, at least enough to get some client support.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards