[Standards] presence priority -1 issues
dmeyer at tzi.de
Mon Jul 28 17:51:40 UTC 2008
"Jack Moffitt" wrote:
>>> It's possible this is just a UI problem.
>> I remember chatting to Pedro Melo about this back in February, and I
>> believe our conclusion back then was just that clients will start
>> showing -1 as a non-chat resource, or somesuch, depending on how
>> general usage pans out
> Ok, fair enough, but there are other problems.
> Jabberd2 and Google Talk both refuse to send presence to resources at
> priority -1.
IMHO that is wrong compared to the statement above. I agree that -1
means non-chat resource. This can either be a chat client without a
user or an application doing something completly different with
XMPP. For a -1 priority I would propose:
1. <message> stanzas to the bare JID should not be send to this client
because no user will read it. Use message storage or whatever a
server may do with such a message.
2. <message> stanzas to the full JID should be send to this client.
There is a reason why the sender used the full JID for that
message. It could be an IBB using message for two non-chat
applications exchanging data.
3. <presence> should be send to all clients or two non-chat clients
will never find each other to send messages to the full JID.
My point is that "non-chat resource" doesn't mean it is an idle chat
client, it can be something very much alive but not for chatting.
Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
More information about the Standards