On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Mathieu Pasquet <[email protected]> wrote: > Could we get a footnote for User Avatar saying that clients having > specific restrictions (e.g. console clients like poezio, profanity, > mcabber, freetalk…, or dedicated clients, for example if someone makes a > client for blind people) do not have to implement it? It is obviously > possible to implement with some quirks, but much less relevant to the > users’ needs.
I don't really think we need a footnote; if we add a footnote for every possible exception that may be relavant to some special client we'd end up with a lot of footnotes, and it should be fairly obvious that it doesn't make sense to implement user avatars in a console client. > Also I would replace in the specific sentence “Only one of the > recommended providers must be implemented for compliance. ”, the use of > “must”, with “needs to”. Otherwise one could confuse it with having a > limitation of one provider for the service. Yes, sorry, this needs to be clarified; I'll try to remember to get too it the next time I end up working on the document, however, I sadly no longer have the luxury of working on XMPP related things during work hours (at least, not as much as I could before), so I'm a bit slow and really just working on one thing at a time at the moment (currently some MIX revisions). Pull requests welcome. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
