On Fri Apr 17 15:06:36 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/4/17 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>:
>
> Jiří, it's better to raise issues than to ignore them.
Sometimes we
> conclude that the issue isn't very serious, but often we don't
know that
> until we discuss it for a while. So keep posting!
>
Sure, I will.
I guess the only "issue" now is the unneeded restriction you added
to
the SVN based on my incorrect feedback. I mean the part "The client
MUST NOT process any of the interim roster pushes until...". I think
you can safely remove it again, as the reason for the change was
proven invalid.
While you're looking at this, what's your opinion on the empty roster
case? (That is, when a roster becomes empty).
It's an odd edge case, but I'm not sure the protocol handles this
usefully.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
