On Monday 06 October 2008 10:45:06 Remko Tronçon wrote: > So, I agree with Pedro that resources should be opaque, and that what > we currently abuse resource names for (mainly historical because not > many clients did much disco'ing before caps).
Do we abuse resource names that way? When I direct stanzas at a particular resource, it's a human decision. It's not like I wrote code that scans for resource strings that contain "laptop" in them. Who has even done that? :) Humans like to name stuff. I've named my XMPP endpoint here "Onulet". This is a personally-assigned, untranslatable, fixed name for the connection. If I send a file to Onulet, it's because I specifically chose to send to there, not because the destination was derived via some disco metadata. The discussion boils down to whether we should have named or unnamed endpoints. I believe there is value in both. Unfortunately, right now "unnamed" means "named ugly". It would be nice if there were a way for clients to not display any value for unnamed endpoints. -Justin
