On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Justin Karneges <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Right, clients will need to be updated in assorted ways to match the current bis drafts, I guess. /K
