[standards-jig] Invisibility Support in Jabber
mass at akuma.org
Fri Aug 9 04:58:33 UTC 2002
It makes things more complicated, but doesn't really make invisibility
For example, I still can't say "I want to be invisible to these people
always" unless I stay invisible and manually send initial presence to
every single user in my roster; otherwise I come online first, which is
an event logged by their client..
Ben Schumacher wrote:
>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
>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:
>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.
>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.
>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!
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards