On 9/7/11 2:33 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > 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.
That's one reason I'd prefer to patch up XEP-0115. Including both caps and son-of-caps in presence broadcast strikes me as a bad idea. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
