Revision 19f9d9441f9327277a330a655cbb258d0cda1018

Nathan Walp nwalp at
Thu Jun 28 22:21:06 EDT 2007

Sean Egan wrote:
> On 6/28/07, Chris Forsythe <chris at> wrote> Etan Reisner wrote:
>> True, but isn't libpurple a library that does not shape Pidgin?
> I, personally, have no objection to this. My original comment was only
> because I know the general feelings of those who maintain the Jabber
> prpl, regarding this feature specifically and the standards process in
> general.
> Anyone who has ever spent time following the XMPP standards process
> would probably realize nothing would ever get done if you waited to
> see the standards process all the way through. It's hard to properly
> see through a protocol until you have at least two implementations of
> this.
> My only caveat would be that "" may not be the
> best namespace URI for this. might be
> better. Perhaps, since it's a feature primarily desired by Adium:
> And I'm sure some people here would prefer it to be:
> <buzz xmlns='mailto:am at'/>
> :)
> I generally concede to Nathan and Etan on issues of the XMPP plugin,
> but I'm at a conference in Chicago right now and Peter Saint-Andre,
> "Patron Saint of Jabber" is sitting right next to me. When we have a
> break, I'll ask him what he recommends.

I have no problem with this being added to libpurple, but this was 
brought up on standards-jig in October, and nothing ever really came of 
it.  I'd like to see the discussion resurrected, and others at least 
showing interest before we go implementing it.

Forcing it to be a plugin seems a touch overkill, there's nothing wrong 
with having it in libpurple proper.


More information about the Devel mailing list