-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/15/09 3:37 PM, Fabio Forno wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: >> Right. But then clients and servers need to implement two similar but >> different protocols for almost exactly the same functionality. Is this >> really worth all the time and effort and confusion involved? >> > > If it's for handling multiple sources the two namespaces are just a > temporary hack for allowing the messages pass through the server, but > the implementation is the same
It's not clear how many server codebases follow RFC 3921 about blocking jabber:iq:roster packets, but if we're going to remove that restriction (it seems we have consensus) then start filing bug reports and feature requests with your favorite server codebases and I would bet they will fix this before draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis becomes an RFC. :) 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpeWmQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzVMwCaAo9UtIc+Ozg+ZmXQg5wEb9ZP nqIAoN8G9ZfhZLxBaYMIolCgP8po/0la =o7I2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
