[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Fri Feb 16 17:33:16 UTC 2007
> I agree on the simplification part. When I wrote the now-dead Adium
> plugin for XMPP, I also implemented the privacy lists.
> I couldn't simply write a user interface for that format, since
> it's far too complicated for casual users. I ended up allowing
> "block everybody except these people:", "allow everyone except
> these people:", "allow everyone" and "block everyone" (the last one
> isn't selectable from the user interface for obvious reasons).
> These options generated new privacy lists from templates I designed.
> You simply can't ask for more complicated stuff in an end-user
I think a sufficiently simple protocol /can/ have a UI for it. The
psuedo-XMPP 'mask lists' I just tossed out, I actually wrote that out
thinking about how it would be done on a UI side. I mean, it's
harder than the generic privacy lists that MSN and ICQ and suchnot
give you, yes. But even if your client doesn't support creating the
higher-granularity rules, it's also trivial to use those mask lists
to create 'block everyone but these people' or 'allow everyone but
these people' lists.
I'm not seriously suggesting those tossed-together shoddy mask list
examples are the solution, of course. Just that I think we need to
consolidate down to one solution which, preferably, doesn't /
sacrifice/ too much in the way of flexibility. :)
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/
More information about the Standards