[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution
richard at dobson-i.net
Thu May 18 12:30:23 UTC 2006
> Richard Dobson typeth:
> | No your spec certainly isn't "unbeatably best so far" as it does nothing
> i said unbeatable when it comes to scalability
That is a questionable assertion and one you cannot really make until
your spec solves the problems it has with privacy lists in a way that we
are all happy with. Having to not use your protocol if there are privacy
lists in place can hardly be described as helping with scalability in
those situations, please wait until your spec is in a state that it will
actually work properly in all situations before making wild assertions
as to its unbeatability.
> it's invisible
> but it is IMPORTANT
> why do you pretend i said anything else but that?
> especially if you're even quoting it where everyone can see i didn't
> say what you claim i said.
I'm sorry but you did, even if you were not meaning to that's how it
came across, but as explained above that is not an assertion you can
really make at this point, as soon as you can solve the problem of
roster synchronisation and privacy lists (which has to be done either
first or at the same time, it cannot be simply left until afterwards)
you will have every right to make those assertions, but the rest of us
also have every right to disagree with them too.
> i'd like to work out a way to implement privacy lists in the new scenario
> together with jabber experienced designers. pablo suggested something nice,
> so if nothing else comes along, we'll gladly use his suggestion.
Good, well at least you do actually want to solve this issue now, that's
a good start, as previously in the discussion you were making strange
philosophical arguments against them seemingly so that you wouldn't have
to bother with solving the issue.
> also it is no good to leave the roster synchronization problem as it is
> and work around it by adding a new protocol on top of it. but we can
> use your idea of pre-negotiated lists to keep the rosters healthy!
Im glad you want to solve this issue too rather than continuing to deny
it even exists, as you have in previous posts, that's progress :)
So to sum up please in future refrain from making wild assertions that
can be easily discounted and stick to the technical details and we will
all be happy.
More information about the Standards