[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0319 (Last User Interaction in Presence)
flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Dec 3 23:14:34 UTC 2014
On 03.12.2014 23:39, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03.12.2014 19:16, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0319 (Last User Interaction in Presence).
>> Abstract: This specification defines a way to communicate time of last user interaction with her system using XMPP presence notifications.
>> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0319.html
>> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2014-12-17.
>> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send your feedback to the standards at xmpp.org discussion list:
>> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
> Christian and Tobias already gave good pro and contra arguments. It
> comes down to: Does the usage of absolute timestamps justify a new XEP?
BTW was it ever discussed to *simply* extend XEP-12 (and thus XEP-256)
with an (optional) 'timestamp' attribute that contains an absolute time
Such a change would come with all the advantages XEP-319 provides, but
without the disadvantages
- to have multiple XEPs for the same goal
- to force libraries to abstract that
Furthermore adding 'timestamp' would be fully backward compatible, if we
say that if it's set, 'seconds' must also exist .
It's also easier to implement: I would guess adding one or two LOCs to
existing XEP-12/-256 implementations plus the logic that favors
timestamp over seconds, compared to implementing a new extension element
and the abstraction layer.
In XEP-12 terms the timestamp value would mean
- the time the user logged out for § 3
- the time the user went idle for § 4
- the time the service was started for § 5
If I'm not overlooking something, I would prefer this solution over XEP-319.
1: As goody, this means one can calculate the lag of the presence stanza. :)
More information about the Standards