Tobias Markmann wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 10:14 AM, Richard Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Kevin Smith wrote:On Jan 22, 2008 6:02 AM, Tobias Markmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.htmlWhat are the enhancements of this XEP compared to XEP-0092? Why should one implement this XEP and not XEP-0092? Since both XEPs seem to do the same job I think there is missing a passage which is when to user or even if XEP-0092 is even to use in future.The aim was to wrap this up inside caps hashes, so you wouldn't a) need to query frequently, or b) pollute the presence packets with more info, which was what other proposals did.Plus even if you wern't implementing caps but were implementing disco you would get the version information for "free" without having to separately query for it. RichardWell, then the XEP should say something about that or even better that this protocol should be used instead of XEP-0092 since it's generally bad to have two standards with the same or nearly the same purpose. In the end the target of a standardization organization is to have just one protocol for a certain purpose otherwise there is implementation overhead to remain interoperability.
Yes, I'll add some text about that. I wrote it in a hurry last night as a follow-up to the XEP-0115 discussion.
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
