[Council] XMPP and invisible presence

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Tue Nov 18 20:12:18 CST 2003

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:41:28PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> One item raised during IETF Last Call was the undesirable indeterminacy
> of saying that the value of the 'type' attribute for an IQ, message, or 
> presence stanza SHOULD be one of the enumerated values (rather than MUST
> be one of the enumerated values). I have changed this to MUST in my
> working copy XMPP Core (see the latest candidate version). As far as I 
> can see, the only major implication of this change for current usage is 
> that <presence type='invisible'/> is now illegal according to XMPP. I'm
> not exactly crying over this, but it does put the status of JEP-0018 in
> doubt.

The status of JEP-0018 is already in doubt, as it doesn't actually
document the existing implementation in 1.4 (type=visible?). In fact, I
completely ignored it for 2.0, and just followed 1.4.

As 18 notes, the same effect can be achieved with privacy lists.
Perhaps we should just ditch invisibility all together.


Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20031119/226d0764/attachment.pgp

More information about the Council mailing list