[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-126 (Invisibility)
htylim at novamens.com
Thu Apr 13 15:19:37 UTC 2006
Remko Troncon wrote:
> This sounds pretty advanced to me, and a protocol to get this seems
> sounds very close to the full privacy lists management, so maybe it's
> not too much to do anyway.
> Actually, the thing that makes privacy lists so awkward is the chain of
> listing+retrieving+modding+submitting. I think that a way to directly
> activate a submitted 'volatile' privacy list would help. So, you do
> something like this:
> <iq type='set'>
> <item type='group' value='myhiddenusers' action='deny' />
> <item action='allow' />
> This will create a new privacy list on the server and immediately make
> it the active list. When another list is activated (or the client
> disconnects), the list is discarded. Such volatile lists allow you to
> quickly set some kind of invisibility. However, this leaves the
> question how permanently blocked users fit in this scheme.
Actually, I don't have any problems with the privacy list as how they
are implemented in regard user blocking. To me the problem is the use of
privacy lists to compensate a lack with the presence mechanism. And to
me invisibility is also a Presence, one that needs special treatment in
the user's server, but a presence nonetheless.
> And i'm with ralph: the proposals of iq based invisibility and blocking
> (even the 'volatile lists' from above) don't have to be in the RFC, a
> profile JEP for privacy lists is fine.
More information about the Standards