On Fri, Sep 7, 2018, at 14:15, Tedd Sterr wrote: > 0054 is vcard-temp itself, and doesn't mention avatars.
Fair, I guess that one doesn't count. > We can also add 0398 to this list. Ah yes, I forgot about that one. It provides some functionality that doesn't make sense in any particular avatar spec (because no matter which one you implement, it may make sense to also implement the compatibility layer), so I think it belongs in its own XEP. I don't love having to dig around to find that either, maybe vcard and pep based avatars should mention it later. > It would be nice to have a unified solution for each individual XMPP > feature, all wrapped up neatly in its own XEP, but if we care about not > breaking things every time a feature is fixed/updated then that's not > really going to happen. The solution we currently have is to publish yet > more XEPs on the same feature and hope there's enough uptake to be able > to deprecate the older ones. I agree with this up to a point, but I don't think that's what's happening here. This XEP will never cause vcard avatars to be deprecated and could easily just be mentioned in that spec since it adds no new functionality. A sentence saying "you can also do this for MUC JIDs" and maybe an example would probably be enough and then people implementing vcard based avatars in clients wouldn't have to know that a whole separate XEP exists and go find it before they can implement MUC avatars. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
