[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists
holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Mon Dec 22 15:46:27 UTC 2014
* Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> [2014-12-22 05:50]:
> Where an implementation uses a common backend for Privacy Lists and
> Block Lists, the implementation MUST ensure that the blocking behaviors
> exposed to the user are consistent with the semantics of the particular
> request they used manage the information held in that backend as
> detailed in their respective specifications. This statement in no way
> alters the specified semantics of the requests.
The question is how XEP-0191 could be mapped onto XEP-0016 in a sane
way. Why do you think the answer should be implementation-specific?
Won't that just add to the current interoperability mess?
Maybe we just have to admit that a sane mapping isn't possible, so those
two extensions would have to be treated as unrelated and incompatible?
Either way, I think this is a protocol issue, not an implementation
More information about the Standards