[Standards] Privacy list: advertised status

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Tue Feb 13 20:55:25 UTC 2007

>>> I don't really get it. Why don't you just send a DND presence out ?
>>> What benefit would there be in a server transforming your presence
>>> packets (over, say, sending out DND and then blocking all presence
>>> out, although i don't see the use there either) ? Can you maybe  
>>> give a
>>> concrete use case?
>> Concrete use case is for example if you want to be available to  
>> your closest coworker (that see your real status). You want to  
>> advertise your familly member that you are working on a given  
>> topic and that they should not disturb you (but they can if they  
>> really need to). Other people see you offline.
>> You can reverse the situation. You are in vacation and connected.  
>> You are invisible for most of your coworker, online but with a  
>> status stating that you are on vacation and should not be  
>> disturbed and free for chat for other users.
> Realistically, do typical end users want to manage that level of  
> complexity? I doubt it. Maybe some power users do, but they are  
> rare. And let's not forget that you can always have multiple  
> accounts...

Actually, sorry, I'm on his side in this one, Peter.  I think this  
does make sense as an extension of invisibility lists.  I can  
completely see the reason to go 'okay, I'm in work mode,' and flip my  
privacy list over so that it shows me as online (in case I really am  
needed for an emergency by family, or a roommate, or a local friend),  
but as DND (so they know I'm working, and can leave me be if it isn't  

Sure, I could swap accounts.  "If I'm on via  
ceruleansparks at gmail.com, go ahead and talk to me there, but if I'm  
only on via sparks at jabber.org, assume I'm at work."  Okay, sure.  But  
then I have to disconnect my Google Talk account while I'm at work,  
and potentially disconnect my jabber.org account (if I'm on a client  
which doesn't support multiple accounts) when not at work.  That's a  
pain, since then I have to ensure everyone has both accounts, etc.   
This feature allows me to give out /one/ contact address, and have my  
presence accurately affect my availability /to the person seeing it/,  
not just a generalized abstraction.

This request is one which doesn't /break/ old clients by adding it  
(if you don't support it client side, you don't LOSE existing  
functionality, and the resulting presence is universally supported on  
the receiving client).  And it's one which really does belong server- 
side, as doing directed-presence on the client side across a huge  
list is really a pain.  The philosophy of XMPP is supposed to be one  
of offloading complexity onto the server where possible, and keeping  
client requirements simple; to me, this suggestion is completely in  
keeping with that philosophy.

Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/

More information about the Standards mailing list