[standards-jig] Invisibility Support in Jabber
ben at blahr.com
Fri Aug 9 07:28:54 UTC 2002
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, David Waite wrote:
> It makes things more complicated, but doesn't really make invisibility
> work better.
> 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..
That currently would require some major changes to the way presence works,
this suggestion, OTOH, is more of an evolution of the protocol. The
feature you mention would still be available to a client that is designed
properly. In my dicussions of how this functionality could be used, the
idea of a predefined bookmark (snapshot?) of visibilities could be
In this situation, my client would store a bookmark of my presence
settings either on the server, or in some sort of local store. Then when I
log in, I would be prompted (if I choose to be) for which presence
bookmark to use. So, for example, I may have a bookmark defined in which
people that are in my "Friends" group would all be set an 'invisible'
presence before my broadcast presence, for use when I was at work. Another
bookmark may store the reverse, allowing only my "Friends" to see me
online when I was at home. How this is implemented is a client detail, but
it could be done, and is just code.
Finally DW, if you really had somebody in your roster that you intended to
never distribute presence to, why wouldn't you just remove them? I am
going to guess, and say that you're potentially suggesting that we use the
roster as a general data store for information, but since it is currently
not designed for that, it seems inappropriate for this use. Maybe after
(if?) we have a finalized pub/sub design it could be better applied to
this concept, but right now we're just trying to make due with what we
/me really thinks DW is just being obtuse, and already knew the counter
argument, but wished to have it expressed.
Or maybe not. *shrug*
More information about the Standards