[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-126 (Invisibility)

Hernan Tylim 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'>
>         <query>
>             <activate>
>                 <item type='group' value='myhiddenusers' action='deny' />
>                      <item action='allow' />
>             </activate>
>         </query>
>     </iq>
> 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.

I agree


More information about the Standards mailing list