[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation
mickael.remond at process-one.net
Wed Feb 14 21:01:23 UTC 2007
Le 13 févr. 07 à 23:17, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> Maybe we can take some time at FOSDEM / DevCon to discuss XEP-0186. :)
Yes, very good idea.
I am not totally sure that invisibility is a misuse of privacy list.
The good thing, that I do not see addressed here is being visible for
some people and invisible for others.
Yes, I have seen that directed presence are delivered. That's client
side behaviour and one thing that might be hard to manage is the case
when new contact become available. They probe you and will see you
offline, but if in your client side policy they were supposed to see
you, the client must react to their available presence by sending a
What I am trying akwardly to say here, is that from the client point
of view, it is not 'fire your presence packets and forget', but
rather, keep track of all your contact presence and react accordingly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards