-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/9/09 11:51 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 4/9/09 11:47 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: >> On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:26:10 Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> I was trying to understand how current components and clients behave ... >>> particularly since psi and others would have already faced and worked >>> around/solved this issue. >> Psi doesn't try to detect the type of contact to know if presence without a >> resource could happen. I'm willing to be no client does that, actually.. >> >> Besides, a transport contact could actually send a resource, and probably >> some >> of them do. I don't think it's fair to assume a transport would always send >> presence without a resource. So, a client has to be prepared to accept >> both. >> I don't see much point in having special handling depending on contact type. >> >> I agree with Robin, that the RFC should at least clarify what it means to >> have >> presence from no resource. Probably it should just be treated as a resource >> of 0-length, that does not overshadow other resources from the same bare >> jid. >> I think this would describe current practice. > > +1
Done in my working copy. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkokSo4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzOPACcDq5k0a6gXaApbq2CugOfBJex VH8AoN0H+b13PfeMNvw/Uk5hJRlg2wjC =bWSJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
