What I would concider against the spirit of it would be to try to use it to publish the voip-uri or your voip presence, rather than as you point out use it to advertise the capability.
That's what you made of it. Noone (including the starter of this topic) ever made that a requirment.
Urm as far as I read it the starter of this topic wants to have a specific functionaility of being able to express voip-presence, not simply the capability.
Capability is disco.. wether it's enabled or not you can express perfectly with 115. Exactly as in the orginal proposal of the author. Without pubsub.
"But if you consider the grand scheme of having the voip client able to notify that you're already on a call, or in do-not-disturb mode"
He nowhere stated that do-not-disturb could not be expressed using normal presence (since this is bundled with the URI in his orginal proposal). In fact, he later said something like "away for VoIP does not always mean away for IM, but away for IM always means away for VoIP". In his original proposal this already worked. You jumped ahead with demanding pubsub and disco and who knows what, which I'm glad you dropped now. All you need is 115 and an IQ request to get the uri (or another mechanism). Though 115 implies you have matching disco features, thankfully it will still work when disco does not.
Like I said, the real question is why 115 uses presence when it could pubsub like any other proposal. I'm not opposed to using presence until pubsub becomes more mainstream and Disco is more sensible to use (hello Avatars), but the exclusivity of 115 is a mystery to me.
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
