[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0224 (Attention)
Jehan.3irgvb at no-mx.jabberforum.org
Wed Nov 12 11:55:42 UTC 2008
if it's not too late about this XEP (sorry if it is)...
Remko Tronçon Wrote:
> Supporting it doesn't mean you advertise it, which only becomes clear
> lower in the xep.
> > > >
> > I agree.
> > In fact would it be possible to even have a finer grained
> > advertisement? That would join the "security considerations", but
> > instead of implementing this at client level, it could be at server
> > level?.. For instance, you may configure that you want to advertise this
> > feature only to people from a certain group, or even to some specific
> > people only. Hence the server would advertise this feature only to these
> > people and they would not forward a "attention" from the others, even if
> > their clients send one anyway (removing the "attention" element, but
> > still sending the "message" element... maybe also adding some
> > information that an attention has been removed?).
> > This way, if I am working for instance, I may set the attention to my
> > work-mates (because they can have urgent matters regarding my current
> > activity) but refuse all other "attention".
> > > > XMPP Extensions Editor;4530 Wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack
> > > or to clarify an existing protocol?
> > > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
> > > and requirements?
> > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> > > why not?
> > > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
> > > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
> > >
> > > Your feedback is appreciated!> > > >
> > 1. I am not fond of such feature, at least the way I saw it used by
> > some people (I saw such a thing was existing in MSN and some people
> > I met who were using it were just complaining about having to block
> > some people, etc.), and also because it is very intrusive. But well
> > used (like the working guy case), so with fine grained
> > configuration, it may be nice...
> > 2. Yes.
> > 3. I have currently no usable code where such high level feature
> > could be used. But if I had a functional client, knowing that many
> > users love this kind of feature, I would probably consider it in my
> > todo list... but only with fine grained control (so if not at server
> > level, at least at my client's level).
> > 4. Maybe even from people authorized to send this kind of
> > attention, there should be some limit? Wouldn't it be an issue if
> > some of my contact were sending me a hundred of "attention" and if
> > my screen would keep shaking/vibrating/etc.?
> > 5. Easy to read and understand. So accurate and clear, yes.
Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911
View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=966
More information about the Standards