[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0319 (Last User Interaction in Presence)

Christian Schudt christian.schudt at gmx.de
Thu Dec 4 07:43:50 UTC 2014


I like Florian’s idea!

It won’t mess up with existing XEP-0256 implementations and if someone really feels he can only deal with absolute timestamps he could use that optional attribute.
It’s way easier to implement as opposed to implement a whole new XEP (+ abstraction layer, which deals with both XEPs).

On the other hand it would be optional and the "seconds“ attribute would be mandatory, which means developers would always check the "seconds“ attribute anyway. And if they know the date already there’s no need for them to use the „timestamp“ attribute, because it should hold (nearly) the same data.

Yes, there might still be transmission delays, as Tobias pointed out, but I think these are negligible, because they are probably only milliseconds and (human) users are probably only interested in an accuracy of minutes.

- Christian

Am 04.12.2014 um 01:04 schrieb Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:

> On 3 December 2014 at 23:14, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> BTW was it ever discussed to *simply* extend XEP-12 (and thus XEP-256)
> with an (optional) 'timestamp' attribute that contains an absolute time
> value?
> 
> I'd particularly like to see any response to this. It looks like a very reasonable avenue to explore, and I don't recall it being raised. XEP-0012 is Final, but the additional of an optional attribute seems acceptable from a procedural point of view, and the technical arguments seem plausible.
> 
> Dave.




More information about the Standards mailing list