[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0276 (Presence Decloaking)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 18 19:44:29 UTC 2012

On 7/18/12 1:31 PM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On 2012-07-17 11:39, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Right, I had assumed that. However, I'm not sure the protocol and the
>> UI tie in as closely as might first appear (given that a malicious
>> entity would just pick the session type most likely to be accepted).
>> That is: The UI could say"Alice wants to start a conversation with you
>> - this will reveal that you're online. [Reveal] [Ignore]" or whatever.
>> Including a machine-readable indication of what's going to happen
>> afterwards seems appealing - but ultimately I'm not sure that it helps
>> (and it introduces additional complexity and need for extensibility
>> and ...).
> If I understand your argument correctly, the reason for decloaking would
> not be rendered by a client. Do we then actually need the element at all?

I think not.

> One argument in favor of identifiers for reasons v.s. just some text is
> localization. In that case I'd go with Kim's proposal.

If we need it, then providing a way for it to be localized is a good idea.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Standards mailing list