[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation
mridul at sun.com
Wed Feb 14 02:29:11 UTC 2007
Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> How should be interpret the various repetition of this sentence in XEP
> 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
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
More information about the Standards