[Standards] Invisible Command and probes
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jun 30 15:27:50 UTC 2010
On 6/30/10 9:20 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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."
Where would this option go and how would it be used? Examples would help. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards