[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Feb 13 22:17:47 UTC 2007
Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> 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. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards