On Wed Oct 19 17:24:21 2011, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 10/19/2011 11:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Joe Hildebrand
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10/19/11 9:25 AM, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The behaviour here is pretty much by design - the PEP defaults
are
>>> there for mutually shared information (e.g. extended presence)
between
>>> people with mutual presence subs. If you want a one-sided
approach,
>>> using manual subscriptions instead of the caps-based magic
seems like
>>> a better fit.
>>
>> This reminds me of another idea that we had kicked around. An
explicit
>> subscription using a caps hash:
>>
>> <iq type='set'
>> from='[email protected]/barracks'
>> to=' [email protected]'
>> id='sub1'>
>> <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
>> <subscribe node='urn:xmpp:explicit'
jid='[email protected]/work'/>
>> <options>
>> <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='submit'>
>> <field var='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'>
>> <value>zHyEOgxTrkpSdGcQKH8EFPLsriY=</value>
>> </field>
>> </x>
>> </options>
>> </pubsub>
>> </iq>
>>
>> This would subscribe francisco to all of the authorized
+subscribe features
>> pointed to by the hash.
>
> That seems fine to me.
>
> /K
>
When client should send such stanza? After each connect and to each
user
with the "to" subscription state?
Indeed, and then you may as well send them presence anyway.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
