[Standards] roster views

Fabio Forno fabio.forno at gmail.com
Sat Feb 28 13:46:40 UTC 2009


On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Partial roster activation is a much much more attractive feature for
> me than partial roster retrieval. I would probably never consider
> using partial roster retrieval for my jabber account.

Partial retrieval will become useful by using the roster as general
purpose address book, as we discussed in Brussels. In that case it
becomes essential to be able to query it or do partial retrievals.
During the meeting we made also made additional use cases: each roster
item could have additional data (vcards, certificates, ...) and that
information should be retrieved only upon specific requests, not
everytime you get the roster. In other words if we want to extend the
roster we need some mechanism for filtering retrieval in two
dimensions:
- filtering the contacts that are retrieved
- filtering the additional information sent with each contact

However I tend to agree that partial activation (together with
sequencing) is much more urgent than partial retrieval

> Anyway, some things to consider for roster views:
> 1. More than one activated group at a time needs to work

on/off toggle for each group. If you specify nothing all groups are
active by default, otherwise only the groups marked with "on" are
active. I also like the idea of having separate toggles for in/out
presence since are very easy to insert the UI: on each group just
place two buttons indicating "activate/deactivate group" and
"hide/show me to group" which are very clear and accessible for all
users

> 2. They may be more useful if they worked based on filters on all data
> associated with a contact, e.g., groups, subscription, hosts

?

> 3. IM users would obviously want to change the activated groups more
> than once during a session, so that needs to be covered

The on/off toggle can be sent with an iq at any moment. I don't know
(for having a single solution covering also invisibility) if it is
useful to activate/deactivate single users.

> Fabio Forno's email covers 1 and 2. As for the RFC vs XEP argument, my
> personal opinion is to keep the RFC short, and have these in an XEP,
> but I don't feel too strongly about that.

My point is that sequencing and partial activation should go in the
RFC (I think there is global consensus and they could be considered
core elements in roster management), while partial retrieval is good
for a xep.

bye

-- 
Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com



More information about the Standards mailing list