[Standards] XEP-0301 Fallback Mechanism of Determining Support (Accessibility)
markybox at gmail.com
Wed Jul 11 14:02:56 UTC 2012
On 2012-07-11 5:55 AM, "Dave Cridland" <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms, if you're modelling an
RTT conversation as a textphone call, don't you want to be ringing, and
accepting the call, via Jingle?
> If it's modelled as an enhancement of existing IM text chat, then using
XEP-0085's model, with it's fallback from disco and caps seems fine -
though it is a fallback from disco, not a replacement.
Both. I am designing for both scenario. I am an ardent advocate of
maximizing flexibility "where reasonable". There are extenuating use cases
in both directions (and other directions too!)
In several years, who knows -- ringing could be added as a separate XEP for
enhanced RTT mode (which may include HTML and last message editing, etc.)
depending on how the real world usage evolves.
Priority is keeping it as simple as a chat state, AND deliverable if
message body is deliverable (which means even in private mode). A whole
implementation can just follow "Basic Real Time Text" (without key
intervals) and ignore 90 percent of the document. The protocol section is
only a quarter the size of the rest of document (for good reason)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards