[Standards-JIG] Roster block importing and synchronisation usingJEP-0093

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Tue Sep 14 20:41:58 UTC 2004


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:35:57 +0100, Richard Dobson <richard at dobson-i.net>  
wrote:

>> No client should automatically delete such a contact it were a normal  
>> contact. For example let's say I accidently delete you from my roster.  
>> That means I get set to "none" in your roster. If your client  
>> automatically deletes that contact (just cause it's "none") it means  
>> you have no way of getting back to me. You don't want *me* to have that  
>> kind of control over your roster do you?
>
> Well you are already giving the transport the ability to remove contacts  
> with your protocol, how is that any different (control wise) than using  
> the instance of when a transport contact is changed to "none" to define  
> that it should be removed, I fail to see any difference in the level of  
> control you are giving something else (i.e. the transport).

Well, this proposal relies on using existing clients and there existing  
features. No good client would just delete a "none" contact. Even in it's  
*current* form our proposal can make a distinction between a contact you  
already removed (and that will be actually removed from your jabber  
roster) and the normal situation (where your contact's subscription state  
will be set to "none" because the contact removed you from his legacy  
network roster). Even if you update the clients for Mike's proposal (to do  
things automatically and such) you can't make that distinction, so even  
then you can't make clients automatically remove "none" contacts. unless  
you want to remove ALL "none" contacts (including the ones you DIDN'T  
delete yet) which is a very bad idea.

Also, I already posted to the list our spec will be refined on this, using  
"remove" instead of "none" for removing, so "none" can be used as.. "none".



More information about the Standards mailing list