[Standards] PEP + Invisibility = bad behavior?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Apr 28 15:58:03 UTC 2008


Gabriel Soto wrote:

>>  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?

Yes they do.

> 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. 

Agreed.

> 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...

Probably. One of these years we'll standardize on something correct for
invisibility. I think XEP-0186 is the best way to do because doing it
with privacy lists is quite complex IMHO.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080428/206d6347/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list