[Standards] Link-Local Messaging comments

[Sjoerd Simons]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> >>On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:47:16PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>
> >>>status
> >>
> >>Might make sense to recommend. Also please document which status a 
> >>client which a status field has (salut currently assumes avail, gajim 
> >>offline)
> >
> >You mean the default status?
> 
> An implementor pinged me about this. Although the spec says the lack of 
> a status TXT record should be assumed as equivalent to "avail", I now 
> think it should be "offline". That is, you can be publishing TXT records 
>  but not be available for link-local communications. So we should 
> assume that someone is unavailable unless we positively determine otherwise.

What does offline mean pratically. That i shouldn't start xmpp connections to
that client at all or just no text messages or ?

I've got no problems with specifying that no status record means
offline/unavailable as long as a know what that actually means :)

  Sjoerd
-- 
It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
		-- Phil White