[Standards] XEP-0191 wording
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Mar 15 21:18:35 UTC 2007
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> XEP-0191 Introduction has the following sentence:
> "Unfortunately, because the privacy lists extension is quite complex, it
> has not been widely implemented in servers and has been implemented
> virtually not at all in clients."
> I do not object this rationale for the XEP creation, but the sentence is
> untrue now.
> It's not complex. What makes it look complex is that we do not have
> recommended usage patterns for developers to follow.
> The implementations are present. All major players on the client and
> server field do implement Privacy Lists.
OK, folks, make up your minds. We had all sorts of complaints that
"privacy lists are too hard", therefore I wrote up XEP-0191. So my
question is: are they complex or not? If not, I would be happy to
retract XEP-0191 and we can move forward with XEP-0016 alone.
However, I still maintain that doing invisibility via privacy lists is
bad and I would like to move forward with XEP-0186 for that. Not that I
personally care about invisibility (get yourself a secondary account and
be done with it), but if we're going to have a spec for it, let's do it
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards