[Standards-JIG] Re: Presence priority Question

Trejkaz trejkaz at trypticon.org
Sat Feb 4 12:20:14 UTC 2006


On Saturday 04 February 2006 15:18, Vinod Panicker wrote:
> IMO, the spec should say that a client SHOULD not set a priority
> greater than 0.  If it does set a priority greater than 0, it has to
> detect using suitable mechanisms when and if the user of the client
> has gone "away" and MUST drop the priority down back to 0 or a
> negative value.

I wouldn't set things like this in stone.

Yes, setting the priority back to -1 would solve some of these problems, but 
ultimately the priority field is present so that it can be USED.  If we 
really wanted all clients in an away state to receive no messages addressed 
to the bare JID, then the routing rules would would have specified that the 
status value is more important when choosing which resource to route to.

TX

-- 
             Email: trejkaz at trypticon.org
         Jabber ID: trejkaz at trypticon.org
          Web site: http://trypticon.org/
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060204/151e85f7/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list