[Standards] Invisible Command and probes

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 30 15:20:24 UTC 2010


On 30 June 2010 16:16, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 6/30/10 12:48 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On 30 June 2010 06:13, Paul Aurich <paul at darkrain42.org> wrote:
>>> While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
>>> prosody at conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
>>> actually mention whether or not a server is supposed to generate any
>>> sort of presence probes.
>>>
>>> Waqas suggested that based on historical discussions, most people think
>>> the server shouldn't (I disagree, but anyway.)  Regardless of which side
>>> of that people are on, I think the specification should, at the very
>>> least, bring up the topic.
>>>
>>
>> I wasn't around for the discussion (I was sleeping for once) but my
>> plan for a while has been to add a new attribute to signal this.
>> Setting probe='true' would ask the server to send probes (and thus
>> risk revealing your connected state) or probe='false' to not do this,
>> but understand you may not receive presence from your contacts.
>
> When in doubt, introduce an option? ;-)
>

As a wise developer once said: "You can please some of the people all
of the time, all of the people some of the time, or you can introduce
an option."

Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list