On 2/1/10 10:28 AM, Mike Mahoney wrote: >>> 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. The default is effectively zero, but that's not specified in the schema. Easy enough to fix. > There was some talk on JDev recently about > binding multiple resources on one stream. Right, we removed that proposed behavior from 3920bis. :) > In those cases it would make a > lot of sense to use priorities and deliver appropriately. And in other cases, too. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.