jdev - 2023-09-11

When a server or a client advertises their compatibility with different XEPs, is there any guarantee that they do? As in, does an XEP have any means of vetting a server or client to see if there’s a complete implementation?

soulcaramel, pika pika

soulcaramel, and apparently no, there isn't a way to verify the claims

I mean, kinda, if they follow the protocol yes, if not no

soulcaramel: not really, surely not to detect malicious intentions. Clients will quickly see broken functionality, of course. As a server operator, you probably do not want to advertise functionality that you're not supporting, as client interoperability will appear to be much more broken in comparison with a scenario where clients do not attempt to use functionality that's not advertised by the server.

Guus: But above all, you want the Conversations compliance green checkmarks! Some of those only requires advertising the feature. :P

Zash: I understand the urge for green check marks, but if your product will subsequently be known to be 'incompatible' or even 'broken'... well, it's not a path that I'd wilfully take for my server sided software. Things are already hard enough with trying to actually be compatible. It's why Openfire does not have the CSI check marks yet, for example. Advertising the feature, or even supporting activation is dead simple, but if you're not actually going to get an implemented feature, people will rightfully complain. (CSI is coming in the next release though. It's already in the nightlies)

The Conversations compliance checker checks deployed instances, so configuration, so maybe the admin has some incentive to write plugins that advertise features to boost their rating? :)

In general I don't think you can stop anyone from lying on the internet about their capabilities :)

LinkedIn.