On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/1/22 Olivier Goffart <[email protected]>:
Why do we need to send icons URL for status? I think it will just
confuse the
user if each cotact has different icons for different statuses.
I see also that as a potential security issue that can reveal
user's presence
+ IP (while following the links)
I agree. IMO there is no reason, why should one client tell another
how to display it's states. I would certainly not implement (or enable
in client supporting this) such behavior. Noted security issue is also
a problem. On the other hand, if some client really used it, it would
have no way of knowing, whether cached images are up-to-date.
This is to combat every client coming up with their own icons for
other peoples' clients. You do not need to use the info, or provide
it, but it is useful for the folks that believe that what client you
are using matters to the end user.
Other thing: every client can have different sizes of icons. I imagine
one could solve this by offering big images for client to scale down.
Now we can download 50+ (probably more) 128x128px images every
startup.
So.. I think it is nice reinterpretation of XEP-92, but these icons
are way too useless.
We should specify a suggested size, and that you MUST cache and use
HEAD requests to check cache if you're going to use the icons.
