On 9/5/11 6:39 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of course, it may be simplest just to bite the bullet and switch hash > algorithm - or even change the 'hash' attribute name - because then > it'll get treated as a pre-1.4 caps by the vast majority of entities > and everything will happen right (or at least, no worse than it often > does today anyway). A bunch of our software already assumes that if you're doing old caps, you don't have any caps we care about. > I'm gradually leaning toward this, because although it's *quite* > violent, the downside is not impossible. > > BTW, anyone any idea what happens if you include more than one <c/> > in a presence, in practical terms? I imagine you'd break enough stuff that my vote would be to use a different namespace. And then all of the people who complain to me about the *VAST* number of octets that caps takes will redouble their bitching and moaning. -- Joe Hildebrand
