[standards-jig] Invisibility Support in Jabber

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Aug 9 03:27:13 UTC 2002


I would say for this type of change you would submit the JEP as a new
revision and it would go through the process.  I've actually been
working on some notes for JEP-1 that state we approve a JEP revision,
not the JEP itself.  That way we can't just make edits and have them
active.

--temas


On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 22:20, Julian Missig wrote:
> Ben Schumacher wrote:
> *SNIP*
> > 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.
> 
> ARGH. Despite what /some/ of the Internet Drafts say, type="available" 
> /is/ a part of the protocol. Any docs which leave it out are in error.
> 
> That said, I agree that we need a type="visible" -- it definitely helps 
> to further differentiate the difference between visible/invisible and 
> available/unavailable.
> 
> Perhaps look into updating the Presence JEP. What's the process to get a 
> JEP updated/changed? (I think that would make more sense than making a 
> whole new JEP)
> 
> Julian
> -- 
> email: julian at jabber.org
> jabber:julian at jabber.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig





More information about the Standards mailing list