Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I like the part that only client/* should be interpreted as IM-capable
resources, but I don't know if that is too strict.
That's probably too strict. At the least I think we'd say that the
following identities are IM-capable:
account/*
client/*
I always thought these two are independent - account/* defines...
account, client/* describes particular connection.
So for example, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is account/registered,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/calendar is automation/bot and [EMAIL PROTECTED]/chat is
client/pc (yes, I know resources ids are supposed to be opaque, but it
was easier to explain this way).
--
Maciek
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
