Steven Brown wrote:
It could also be implemented as an optional namespace under <presence>,Presence is already a rather large payload for its given task. That is alot of bandwidth for non-conforming servers. And it is changing the protocol. Substantially. If your kind of misfeature is let go unchecked, it only encourages other misfeatures. If you want this kind of change to the protocol, then please take the time to write a jep and submit it for peer review on the Standards JIG mailing list. While the protocol may be considered Open or Open Source, it doesn't mean you can be "willy-nilly" with regards to changes. The days of radical protocol changes are in the distant past, and we have a large userbase to consider now. Simply adding something and saying "non-conforming clients/servers can just ignore it" takes a giant crap in our punch bowl of an organization we have carefully built, and meticulously control. You of course are more than welcome to make whatever changes to the reference implementation server, according to the license, but the modifications to the protocol are subject to copyright and trademark issues.
e.g., the client could send <presence type="available"><promiscuous
xmlns="..."/>...</presence> and capable servers would use it and
incapable servers would ignore it and just treat it as a normal
'available' presence. That wouldn't modify the protocol afaik. I
figured it would make more sense as a type due to the way 'invisible'
had been implemented as a type instead of making it a tag under a
type="unavailable". Would the promiscuous tag under presence as
mentioned be better?
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
