[Jingle] decision needed on senders="none"?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Apr 7 16:21:53 CDT 2009


On 4/5/09 8:06 AM, Will Thompson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> For complete clarity, I'd be in favor of adding UNMUTE and UNHOLD, and
>> retaining ACTIVE.
> 
> So, while implementing this, I noticed that <active/> and <mute/> can
> have @name attributes for which content the message applies to, but
> <hold/> does not. But if I have two streams, x and y, what does:
> 
>   <mute name='x'/>
>   <hold/>
>   <active name='x'/>
> 
> mean? Is my client meant to remember that before the whole call was put
> on hold, x was on mute, and so <active/> should undo that but not the hold?
> 
> I think it would make sense for <active/> always to mean "not ringing,
> not holding, not muted, I'm here!", and to have <unhold/> and <unmute/>.
> Then mute and unmute could take @name, and active could not.

That seems reasonable. I'll fix up XEP-0167 along those lines.

Any objections?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20090407/592b0ffe/attachment.bin 


More information about the Jingle mailing list