[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation

Mridul mridul at sun.com
Wed Feb 14 02:29:11 UTC 2007

Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> Hello,
> How should be interpret the various repetition of this sentence in XEP 
> 126:
> In order to ensure synchronization of presence notifications, the 
> client SHOULD now re-send the user's presence for broadcasting to all 
> contacts, which the active rule will block to all but those JIDs with 
> the specified subscription type:
> In my understanding of privacy list, the best behaviour is that when 
> you become invisible, to let the server send the unavailable presence 
> packet (I think the invisible deprecated JEP, base on presence type 
> invisible).


  Yes, this is the current expected behavior. If the client sets a 
privacy list, server is expected to send unavailable to all contacts to 
whom the user was previously visible and is not so anymore.
The way I understand the sentence above would be - broadcast 
unavailable, set privacy list as active, broadcast available.
I guess this is for handling cases where server does not do the right 
thing w.r.t privacy list change ?


> If I understand this well, the client should retrieve the privacy 
> list, match it against the rosters contacts and send an unavailable to 
> all contact that match, before setting the privacy list and them 
> resynchronizing by sending another presence packet (available).
> Is it what is expected from the client ?
> Should the server send an unavailable packet in behalf of the client 
> in case the client does not do it ?
> -- 
> Mickaël Rémond
>  http://www.process-one.net/

More information about the Standards mailing list