On Wednesday 01 September 2010 12:18:22 you wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed Sep 1 19:39:58 2010, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Justin Karneges > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wednesday 01 September 2010 11:29:54 Kevin Smith wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Wed Sep 1 19:26:44 2010, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > 2010/9/1 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> >> XEP-0145 provides a very simplistic capability for storing > >> >> >> >> notes about contacts on the server. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Very rough, though - I'd be open to something better that > >> >> >> >> actually > >> >> >> >> tied into > >> >> >> >> the roster, personally. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Yes, it seems very limited (just some text note). I would expect > >> >> >> > something as a vcard for each contact stored within the roster. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In theory the server should be storing whatever child elements you > >> >> >> include in a roster set as well, although I don't know how many, > >> >> >> if any, currently do this. > >> >> > > >> >> > Gosh. Not us, but it does sound like the right thing to be doing. > >> >> > > >> >> > How does a client know this is possible, rather than using '49 or > >> >> > '223? > >> >> > >> >> Assume it is, because it's part of the RFC (or bis, anyway)? :) > >> > > >> > Erm, isn't there a risk that existing clients will destroy the > >> > metadata if the > >> > roster item is ever modified? > >> > >> There's a risk, but clients should be persisting content they don't > >> understand, rather than binning it. > > > > It does all seem to rely on luck and a following wind, doesn't it? > > > > Could we not make this a little more reliable, like roster versioning? > > We could - although it's not clear to me how much of a problem this is > - other storage specs suffer from it as well - Bookmarks for example > (either over private or P(E|O|I)P).
I have a strong feeling no client stores arbitrary XML of roster items to keep around when (re)submitting changes. At least not any designed before this became a topic.
