[Standards] presence priority -1 issues

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at gmail.com
Fri Jul 25 15:01:22 UTC 2008


It's possible this is just a UI problem.

http://blog.jabber.com/filaments/2008/03/11/priority-1-presence/

-1 resources should be included in the probe response.

On Jul 24, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:

> At XMPP Summit 5 this past week it became clear that lots of people
> are using or are planning to use presence priorities of -1 to allow
> specialized clients access to various XMPP resources.  At Speeqe we do
> this so that our MUC client doesn't steal private messages.  I believe
> that Fritzy at Seesmic said that Twhirl would soon start doing this
> now that they have XMPP support there for Identi.ca.
>
> This has lead me to discover  some small usability problems.
>
> It looks like the spec requires that users with presence priority -1
> be shown as available, but I'm not sure if I'm missing something in
> the spec or if it is just underspecced.
>
> http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3921.html#presence-resp-probes says that
> the server must reply from all "available" resources, but it does not
> say how this interacts with negative presence priorities.
>
> The unwelcome side-effect of this is that if you are online only in
> negative priority mode you show as available to all your contacts, but
> you cannot receive any messages to the bare jid.  This is pretty
> confusing for people trying to talk to you.
>
> Is this a nuisance we have to live with?  Can a clarification be made
> here?  Can the different server authors tell us what they have done in
> this edge case?  Thoughts?
>
> jack.




More information about the Standards mailing list