[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Metacontacts
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Mar 27 12:56:57 UTC 2007
Pedro Melo wrote:
>> Well, what we decided was that it made sense to name the meta-contact
>> the same way you would name the highest-order member
> But the highest order member is not know unless all accounts are online.
The highest order member that's available to the client is known though,
which is all that's required.
> Given that you want to make the protocol resilient, shouldn't we store
> the name and groups in all account jabber:iq:private?
Well, that's how we would end up with conflicts, which is why we've
constructed the spec such that we don't end up with duplicated data
which can then conflict.
> I mean, if you use the highest order member and you only have a partial
> view of your accounts, you might end up with a contact that changes
> group and name every time one of your accounts goes online and offline.
That's true, but it's not a problem; it's a user choice how they name
and group these contacts - if they want the different members of a
metacontact to have different names, and different groups, then surely
it's right to honour this?
> Also: how do you plan to take in account the <show> element? Do you keep
> the order per 'show' value?
Which <show> element?
> We struggle with some of this with our client. We support meta-contacts
> (our protocol uses only information available in the roster) for quite
> some time now, but we are trying to improve the reaction to presence
Presence changes between the multiple accounts of a user, or of contacts?
More information about the Standards