[Standards-JIG] Re: Message importance

Hal Rottenberg halr9000 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 11 22:24:10 UTC 2006

I'm with Lukas (please forgive the butchering of your name).  I think
you guys are overcomplicating this use case.  I'm of the opinion that
it's not the sender's job to decide how a message will be presented,
that is the job of the recipient's client.

Now I happen to konw of a client that actually disallows you from
sending a message to someone in DND and I think it's the silliest
thing.  In fact it's the second most annoying misfeature I can think
of.  The first being the inability to send offline messages.

Ok, back on topic.  I actually have no problem with the concept of an
importance field.  But let the recipient deal with it.  I'm thinking
along the lines of web design where CSS styles have various levels of
precedence and the highest level--is the client.

On 10/10/06, Lukáš 'Spike' Polívka <lukas.polivka at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Tomasz Melcer <liori at exroot.org> wrote:
> > Lukáš 'Spike' Polívka napisał(a):
> > > I personally think that when my friend is in DND mode then it's his
> > > client's job not to generate any notifications (or generate only
> > > certain notifications, e.g. change trayicon, not some OSD across the
> > > whole screen). You don't need any protocol extension for this, you
> > > could only define some kind of Best Practice XEP or just use common
> > > sense. :)
> >
> > If he will turn off his client without changing his state to online, and
> > login into the account with another client (possibly at another
> > machine), he won't get that message.
> >
> > Some people always have dnd state at work or at their mobile clients. In
> > such case their clients would keep such messages indefinitely. Moreover,
> > your solution would make client more complicated, f.e. it would need to
> > store that message somewhere... some clients cannot do that. So there's
> > need to store such messages on server.
> >
> > Tomasz Melcer
> >
> >
> But he gets the message (unless he sets negative priority as well) and
> clients usually store the messages anyway. The AMP approach doesn't
> make clients any more complicated? Really? I think that people should
> probably learn how to use XMPP (and clients should help them -- e.g.
> by showing that the only connected resource has negative priority.
> Based on this you could decide if you want to send the message to the
> bare or full JID.).
> Lukas Polivka
> --
> IM (XMPP/Jabber/Google Talk): spike411 at jabber.cz
> ICQ, AIM, MSN: Never ever!

Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
im:hal at jabber.rocks.cc

More information about the Standards mailing list