On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:09:13PM -0700, Steven Brown wrote: > It could also be implemented as an optional namespace under <presence>, > 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?
Yes, that is the Jabber Way [tm]. And <presence type='invisible'/> is evil. Let's not use that as a model for anything. :-) Peter _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
