On Sunday 05 February 2006 22:54, Alexey Nezhdanov wrote: > В сообщении от Воскресенье 05 Февраль 2006 14:09 Trejkaz написал(a): > > On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:52, Michal Vaner (Vorner) wrote: > > > > So basically what you're saying is, the only way to find out is to > > > > try and then get an error > > I propose next logic: > 1) Since only 100% XMPP compliant servers can declare "version='1.0'" in > the stream header so decide on it. If there _is_ such attribute then > privacy lists are supported. > 2) If server have no "version='1.0'" attribute - then look to advertised > features. > > This method is quite complying standart IMHO.
Okay, so...
- If the feature is present, then privacy is available.
- If the version is not 1.0, then privacy is not available.
- Otherwise, try and retreive the privacy lists to see if it's available.
Because for example, gmail.com claims version="1.0" but responds with
feature-not-implemented when I try to use privacy lists. (BTW, does this
mean that gmail.com should not be claiming version="1.0"?)
TX
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://trypticon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
pgptclILhYLP2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
