[Standards] XEP-0191 wording

Peter Saint-Andre 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 



Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070315/f0a90b99/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list