Sergei Golovan wrote: > On 8/10/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sergei Golovan wrote: >>> This message looks like <iq/> but <iq/> is better because the >>> recipient may receive result in case of accepted attention or error in >>> case of ignored one. The ability of getting a response even makes >>> disco#info queries unnecessary. >> Yes this seems like an acceptable use of IQ to me, though I don't know >> if you really need a response to an attention request. > > Yes, I'd like to know if my attention request wasn't ignored by a > recipient's client.
Fair enough, I have no objections to an IQ approach. >>> I'd not call a responding on disco#info and disco#items query per >>> recipient an overkill. >> In this case it seems like overkill to me -- the client needs to keep > > You're right that in case of attention support it's an overkill. So, > I'd remove several MUSTs from the XEP. Namely, I don't feel that > disco#info querying is necessary before alerting and I don't think > that the advertising must be switched off when it's disabled. Agreed. So now we'll wait for the spec author to make those changes if he agrees, too. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
