[jdev] Privacy feature

[Trejkaz]

On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:52, Michal Vaner (Vorner) wrote:
> > So basically what you're saying is, the only way to find out is to try
> > and then get an error, because:
> >
> >   1) a server might be 100% XMPP compliant, and simply allow the privacy
> > list feature to be disabled, or;
>
> Then the software might be compliant, but the server is not. Compliant
> server must support it and have it available. Therefore, what does not
> provide this is not compliant.

That's not the opinion people here had about Google only allowing plaintext 
authentication.  They said that what a server chooses to expose to the world 
is the server's choice, and it doesn't make it non-compliant.

(If you want to start that argument up again, you can take it up with the 
people who originally had the opposite opinion because really, I just care 
about getting things to work.)

> >   2) a server might not claim to be XMPP compliant at all, and still
> > support the feature.
>
> It may be missing something else, therefore it would not be compliant for
> other reason.

You must have misread what I wrote.  Try reading it again, with emphasis added 
around the important part.

        A server ** might not claim to be XMPP compliant at all **
                                     ...and still support the feature.

For example, if jabberd1.4 went and implemented privacy lists, then it would 
still have privacy lists as a feature, without being XMPP compliant or even 
claiming to be.  In this scenario, I don't want to penalise the server 
because it supports the feature I need it to support.

In other words, assuming that only compliant servers support privacy lists is 
just as incorrect as assuming that privacy lists are only supported on 
compliant servers.

> Then you would have to provide a way to test if the server allows sending
> stanzas and everything. The protocol would get incredibly complicated if
> you tested just any feature. In every protocol, there is some base that can
> not be tested, protocol states it is supported by anything, so why to test
> it? Would it make logical sense to say it is supported by any server and
> then allow client to test if it is?

No, but this isn't a feature supported by every server, is it?

Even assuming this _were_ a feature which were supported by all XMPP compliant 
servers, there is actually no disco#info feature which can tell me that a 
server is XMPP compliant in the first place.

TX

-- 
             Email: trejkaz at trypticon.org
         Jabber ID: trejkaz at trypticon.org
          Web site: http://trypticon.org/
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20060205/d1af7e12/attachment-0002.pgp>