[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.

Rob.

-- 
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