[standards-jig] Re: [Foundation] Motion for Last Call - Chat State Notifications (JEP-0085)
mass at akuma.org
Fri Dec 5 02:07:49 CST 2003
On Dec 4, 2003, at 11:27 PM, Julian Missig wrote:
> I'm absolutely positive that if I sent "closed window" events to
> people whenever I closed my windows, they would be offended. I close
> windows all the time. It doesn't really make a difference. This is the
> form of loss of privacy I'm talking about. No one's going to be
> offended or know something important if they can see that I'm typing a
> message to them. Depending on how the "closed window" event is
> displayed to other users in their clients (which I have no control
> over), it can seem rather offensive if they see that I closed their
> window immediately after seeing a message. I think it will lead to a
> lot more problems than it solves.
Speaking as someone who has used an official client for a legacy IM
system which has "closed window" events, people do get offended. They
don't seem to realize that I don't need to see their window until they
decide to respond to my message. I've also used a client which notified
the other user that the window was minimized or lost focus, and people
think you are ignoring them.
It is a bit confusing whether Gone is optional or required, the spec
1. When a client terminates a one-to-one chat session (e.g., when a
user closes the chat session interface), it MUST generate a Gone event.
If I implement this in a chat client, Inactive will be triggered not on
window closing or focus changes, but auto-away. Gone would be sent only
on client close. This makes both a bit pointless (as the other user
agent will get away or unavailable presence immediately afterward) but
these are SHOULD requirements and not difficult to implement.
> Even if Chat State is accepted and such, I will not implement closed
> window in any of my clients. Anyway, this whole closed window thing is
> just a side rant to the bigger issue of Chat State vs. x:event
> altogether. I don't want to completely get rid of and replace a
> protocol which a lot of people are finally coming around to implement.
I know what you mean. The only real problem I have with x:event is that
events are requested in response to a message, and not as an attribute
of the conversation. Since everyone wants events on a chat, they assume
the x:event protocol operates in a different manner than it really
does, and thus send incorrect protocol. The real question is whether
everyone will be willing to drop x:event and support a new standard, or
if everyone will have to implement two standards for the forseeable
future in order to give proper events.
More information about the Members