[Standards] XEP-0126 invisibility interpretation

Rachel Blackman 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  
> application.

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 mailing list