[Standards] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Tue Jul 1 03:57:56 CDT 2008


Hi,

On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

> Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always  
> dangerous).

I told you not to listen to me...


> His scenario was basically:
>
> - Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.
>
> - A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.
>
> - A sends B a message.
>
> - B responds with another message.
>
> - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about  
> being disturbed.
>
> A couple of things strike me here:
>
> 1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.
>
> 2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A  
> sent directed presence to B.

I was wondering if there is a potential use for the forgotten  
<thread> but I can't make that case yet.

Maybe directed presence in the context of a thread.

Just throwing stuff in the air...


> 3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general,  
> really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case,  
> where B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs.
>
> As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and  
> cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't  
> Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters.
>
> I was curious as to what developers thought about the situation,  
> and whether any clients do in fact send directed presence to roster  
> people when in states such as dnd.

I think client authors should look at the disco reply of each JID. If  
I announce that I'm a

<identity category="client" type="bot" />

you really shouldn't be sending me auto-replies.

I think that if client authors respect this, you won't need anything  
else.

But I would like to see automatic messages marked somehow anyway,  
maybe a <x xmlns="urn:xmpp:automatic-message' />. This would allow me  
to influence the display of such messages (and other things like  
don't store them in the archive).


> Finally, if dnd really does mean Do NOT Disturb At All Ever, then  
> I'm in raised-eyebrow territory, because I thought it meant Do Not  
> Disturb Unless Important - since if you really don't want to be  
> disturbed, then there's that "unavailable" presence type. But  
> what's important is tricky - so perhaps it's an application of  
> XEP-0155, and we negotiate that between clients.

Offline is different. Offline is "not available". DND is "available  
if you have agreed with me when its ok to interrupt me". It's  
probably the state with most social baggage we have, because it  
really depends on a lot of cultural baggage specific to each person.

I often understand DND as a state where I can interrupt other to ask  
some stuff for the task that I'm doing. And I'm willing to accept  
back responses, so it should be accompanied by a direct presence  
perhaps.

But really, this is a place where clients can be better: I can see a  
client that sends to offline storage the messages that where sent  
while on DND and when you change back to available you get "Welcome  
back, dave. You had 4 contacts trying to reach you while you where  
out. Care to see a summary of their messages?".

Also, chat windows opened to dnd contacts should have a big RED sign  
saying "Are you felling lucky, punk?".

Best regards,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org
Use XMPP!




More information about the Standards mailing list