On 05/03/2008 2:51 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote: >> 1. Modify existing documentation and implementations to a more strict >> behavior that would treat values not mentionned in RFC 3921 as illegal. > > What documentation mentions the type 'available'? I know some (older) > implementations used to use 'available' as a type, and most > implementations just ignore an unknown type and treat it as > 'available', which i think is a sensible thing to do. If you are a > purist, you could return an error if you encounter it, but I think > it's much more work to return errors than ignore it on the client > side. > > Anyway, if you see the type somewhere, it should be reported as a bug, > and the software/documentation should be fixed.
I have found two instances of this bug, both in examples from XEP-0200. They have been corrected: http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0200.xml?r1=1465&r2=1823 Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
