[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Feb 13 22:17:47 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).
> 
> 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 ?

Maybe we can take some time at FOSDEM / DevCon to discuss XEP-0186. :)

/psa


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070213/dcffd2ee/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list