[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Dec 22 18:07:58 UTC 2014

On 12/22/2014 10:21 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Also bear in mind that XEP-0191 was designed to be a simple replacement to
> XEP-0016, the observation being that with the exception of some extremely
> rare cases, everything people actually used XEP-0016 for could be wrapped
> up into XEP-0191 and XEP-0186

I don't get this impression reading XEP-0191; all that stuff about it
being a frontend for XEP-0016, and mappings between the two, etc.

However, I do agree that this is how it SHOULD be. Maybe putting it
forward as a means to obsolete XEP-0016 (which in my opinion is
overengineered and has little to no real use)?

On 12/22/2014 10:46 AM, Holger Weiß wrote:
> 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?

Also agreed. Even if everyone is opposed to obsoleting XEP-0016, maybe
0191 should just be separated and treated as a separate entity; there
just isn't a good way to make it a "simpler frontend" for 0016.


Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141222/f2998746/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list