[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-126 (Invisibility)
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Apr 12 18:55:38 UTC 2006
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 03:40:22PM -0300, Hernan Tylim wrote:
> I am not a server implementor, and I know that I might be talking
> without a solid knowledge, but my opinion is that the current Presence
> mechanism is too rigid. To me direct presences shouldn't exist, or in
> any case, they should be handled by the user's server and not just
> routed and ignored.
I don't understand this. How is it rigid if you want something removed?
Also, the fact that it is apparently hard to create a nice UI for
directed presence, doesn't mean it isn't useful or undesirable.
Protocol-wise, it is the responsibility of the users' server to not go
override the directed presence. It isn't rocket-science to implement and
clearly documented in the RFC.
> What I would like, or more precisely need in a near future, is to be
> able to be online to only a group of contacts, busy to others and away
> to everybody else.
I understand this desire. Unfortunately, there is currently no handle
for roster groups to direct presences to. However, that would be
conceptionally the easiest way. Another is to annotate the (undirected)
presence stanza with hints on how to have it broadcast. This might get
tricky pretty soon.
> I know that I can do this with a combination of direct-presences and
> privacy list, but, as someone already stated on this thread, they are
> awkwards to use for these kind of scenarios.
> My proposal is to use IQs to selectively change a user's presence to
> invisible(offline) but also to any other state with an option to choose
> to which user's contacts this presence is directed. Note that if no
> contacts are explicitly choosen then the presence can be globally
For invisibility, see the parent mail (by me). For other presences. I
don't feel much for using iq's for also relaying basic presence. If you
also mean influencing the broadcast process with iq's, sure.
More information about the Standards