Justin Karneges wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 10:10 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
Hello
Wouldn't it be better to discourage _sending_ such messages instead of
recommending how to handle them?
At last a notice that sending such message is a bad thing (dumb clients,
whatever) anyway?
Yes, we need to add that. This is a very early draft and I'm looking for
Justin to provide some feedback, but I wanted to get something out there
for discussion.
Great to see this as a XEP.
First, the example 1 is an invalid message, and I don't think this is ever
revealed. I'd suggest putting the profile of example 1 after the rules in
section 3.
We should probably have a set of example message stanzas where we state the
profile next to each one. Maybe this could be section 4.
The IM profile looks good.
The Data negotiation profile confuses me. There are six specs listed in this
section, and IMO these should be six separate profiles. A question to ask
yourself, for example, is if you'd mix Jabber-RPC and Stanza Session
Negotiation.
I don't know if we should consider Transmission to be a profile. Maybe it
should be moved out of section 2. Also, it is stated, "If a message stanza
includes only transmission elements, it can be considered in the transmission
profile." I think in this case the message would rather be considered to
have no profile.
I think Chat State Notifications falls under IM.
You can have chat state along with a body/xhtml - I thought the proposal
said you cant have more than one element from a profile within a message ?
- Mridul
If a client receives a message stanza with no profile (this can occur if the
stanza is actually empty, or contains only transmission elements and/or
unknown elements), maybe we should define a <unknown-profile> or such error
code (or reuse a nearby code) for the client to bounce back.
It is possible for a client to determine conclusively that there is a profile
conflict, if two types of differing profile elements that it understands
happen to be present in the same message. Maybe we should define an error
code for this as well (not-acceptable?).
-Justin
