On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:16:45 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote: > > 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). > > IMHO you'd get account/* from a bare JID and client/* from a full JID. > > /psa > But then account/* should never send presence, no? -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
