[Standards] PEP + Invisibility = bad behavior?

Gabriel Soto gabsoto at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 15:47:50 UTC 2008

>  I think it is stated in Section 13.1 of XEP-0060, which says that one
>  possible trigger for sending a notification is:
>  ***
>  4. The entity is not subscribed but is eligible to do so and has sent
>  presence containing appropriate entity capabilities data to a service
>  that supports filtered notifications (effectively establishing a
>  "temporary subscription"); when the publisher sends a publish request
>  that matches the entity's expressed notification interests, the service
>  sends the currently published item to the entity.
>  ***
>  But it probably could be clearer, for example in Section 10.1.3.

I see. Never mind then, it's pretty clear there. I don't know the
PubSub XEP in detail, as you could guess :)

>  Personally I don't care about invisibility. If you want to get some, you
>  have to give some. Life is hard.

Yep, I got that answer before...
Personally I don't care either; mmm... except for the fact that I'm
implementing a client that requires the feature :)
I know that many people use it, though; and I believe that most
instant messengers have it, right?

In my opinion, if the user has to compromise in order to be invisible
that could be completely valid, but let it be a design decision and
not a consequence of an omission in the protocols. I think that the
kind of compromises involved here wouldn't make much sense to a user,
the behavior is too complex and random, it would appear as a bug
instead of something intentional. What's the point in having a
protocol that acts unintuitively?

I guess that something like the XEP-0186
[http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html] would be the proper way
to go for invisibility in the end...


More information about the Standards mailing list