>> Missing IMs because you accidentally left yourself logged in on >> another >> machine, or because Client X has different default priority settings >> than Client Y is inconvenient, annoying and prone to error. This is true for the typical human-user case of IM clients, but for other XMPP use cases the delivery to a specific prioritized resource could be important. > > This could be fixed by specifying that the default priority should be > 0. Why kill a feature just because a few users don't use it? It could > be just hidden from them and those who want to use it can still use > it. I would not want to use a server that delivers my messages to all > resources. > +1 to specifying a default of 0. There was some talk on JDev recently about binding multiple resources on one stream. In those cases it would make a lot of sense to use priorities and deliver appropriately. -Mike
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.