[Standards-JIG] Problem implementing XEP-0191 / Mapping XEP-0191 on XEP-0016

Matthias Wimmer m at tthias.eu
Fri Dec 15 14:18:37 UTC 2006


Jacek Konieczny schrieb:
> Why not just map block list to one, defined privacy list?  It's name
> would be well-known, it contents would be expected (only
> type='jid'/action='deny' entries) and clients choosing full privacy-list
> interface would just select and modify some other lists. Adding
> non-blocklist-compatible  entries to the blocklist privacy-list would
> cause undefined behaviour, but this would be a single case for which
> there could be exception added even in clients not implementing block
> lists. 

I don't think we should use a well-known privacy list for this.

Names of privacy lists are strings a privacy list client will display to
users. Using a well-known name here is a big internationalization bug.

I still think that blocklists should modify the default list, which is
the list, that is active as long as the client does not select another
privacy list for the session.


Matthias

-- 
Matthias Wimmer      Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70
Züricher Str. 243    Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56
81476 München        http://ma.tthias.eu/




More information about the Standards mailing list