[standards-jig] Invisibility Support in Jabber

Mike Lin mikelin at MIT.EDU
Fri Aug 9 01:43:13 UTC 2002

i'm not sure why all the preemptive defensiveness. this seems like a
fine proposal to me. we already have to jump through some hoops to keep
presence information consistent and to me this just seems to help
disambiguate things.

-- mike --

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 21:06, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> <sarcasm>
> I sitting here reading the mailing lists today, and it occurred
> to me that there hasn't been nearly enough controvesy on the
> Jabber-related mailing lists lately, so I've decided to step up and cause
> some.
> </sarcasm>
> Here's the deal. I'd like to propose a new type of presence packet for the
> XMPP protocol. I fully expect to hear a lot of backlash from everybody
> with regard to the suggestion, but I think it will add value to the
> protocol. (Please send all flames off-list to ben-devnull at blahr.com.)
> That being said, let me first reference the discussion I had in the JDEV
> conference room earlier today about this issue:
>   http://jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/jdev/2002-08-08.html
> It starts at about 15:38. (Side note: Boy, it'd sure be nice if there were
> anchors every minute when the room is active in those logs. It'd make it
> much easier to link to. 8^P)
> Basically, consider the following situation.
> 1) I come online as "invisible."
>       <presence type='invisible'/>
> 2) I send directed presence of visible to user "a", "c" and "e".
>       <presence to='a at server.com' type='visible'/>
>       <presence to='c at server.com' type='visible'/>
>       <presence to='e at server.com' type='visible'/>
> 3) I change my status to away, the server tracks that I'm only
>    visible to "a", "c" and "e" and forwards my presence update
>    to only those users.
>       <presence><show>Away</show></presence>
> 4) I change my status back to available, again the server tracks
>    that I'm only visible to "a", "c" and "e" and forwards my
>    presence update to only those users.
>       <presence/>
> 5) I decide I want to be visible to all users on my roster, so I
>    send a visible presence out.
>       <presence type='visible'/>
> I hope that explains the reason why. I don't think using 'available' is
> appropriate, because it technically isn't part of the protocol (see the
> IETF docs, at http://jabber.org/ietf/), and you're actually changing your
> availablity in this situation anyhow, you are changing your visibility.
> While I understand that people won't like this idea, cause it complicates
> presence even more, it adds value and doesn't do anything with presence
> that shouldn't be done by presence. I, personally, agree with the general
> sentiment that presence is overloaded, but I think this is a result of
> subscription being tied to presence.
> Anyway. That's my suggestion, let the games (flames?) begin!
> bs.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list