[Standards] Fwd: XEP-0301 Accessibility (resurrected)

Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Wed Jul 11 06:47:52 UTC 2012

On 2012-07-10 23:55, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> > Why do you say that protocol items 1,2 and 3 are flawed?
> It is explained in the previous emails about privacy and bandwidth 
> reasons, etc. Meaning a fallback mechanism is needed. Refer to those. 
> Let's refocus replies to that subject under those messages.

The flame was too hot, I cannot find the main motivations saying that 
disco is flawed. Repeat please.

The fallback, requiring you to send data in-line to the client and 
require an in-line response is not suitable if you just want a 
capability interrogation to plan your session.


More information about the Standards mailing list