[Standards] Fwd: XEP-0301 Accessibility (resurrected)

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 9 18:52:56 UTC 2012

On 9 July 2012 17:45, Mark Rejhon <markybox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gunnar, do you have any suggestions of alternatives that still meets the
> 1-2-3 accessibility requirements?
> 1. It should be possible for senders to signal intent.  (even if some
> recipients may ignore)
> 2. It should be possible for recipients that want to be informed, to
> continue to be informed -- even if they turn off RTT, and they don't want to
> advertise RTT capability.
> 3. It should be possible for recipients to completely ignore or reject (as
> if not supported), and not even advertise at all. (A few people have been
> adamant about being able to do this)
> I also want to eliminate any accessibility blame from accessible
> implementations.
> Unfortunately, disco does not meet the 1-2-3 criteria above, all of which
> have been asked by implementors.
> So if the blank <rtt/> is not suitable, I am open to other ideas.  Please
> feel free to suggest...

I'm afraid all this is mixing up protocol with implementation and UI,
which is rarely a good thing. I understand your concerns, but your
proposals do not address them and additionally make for a rather poor

The reality is that at the end of the day client implementations are
beyond the control of you and I as protocol developers. If a client
wants to have a global "Disable RTT" option then they will implement
it, regardless of what you try to do to prevent it in this document. A
client can just as easily ignore empty <rtt/> as it can remove a
feature from disco.

So that understood, we have to continue designing the protocol, not
trying to anticipate clients. If a client says it does not support a
feature then it is bad practice for another client to send that
feature anyway.

As long as there is a mechanism provided in the protocol for making
more granular (e.g. per-conversation) decisions about RTT then there
should be no question of needing to use service discovery for anything
but "I don't support this feature" and "I REALLY don't want to use
this feature AT ALL" - both cases where trying to use RTT anyway will
get you nowhere.


More information about the Standards mailing list