[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists
holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Tue Dec 23 17:06:09 UTC 2014
* Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> [2014-12-23 05:23]:
> > I think that's a bad user experience.
> There's no way to do this without bad XEP 191 user experience. You
> can either confuse the XEP 191 user by saying a contact is blocked
> when they aren't completely blocked or say they aren't blocked when
> they are partially blocked. Either way is bad. We can debate for a
> long time which is worse, but they are both bad.
I fully agree. Hence my comment earlier in this thead:
| 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?
[ http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-December/029438.html ]
> I favor leaving it to the implementor to determine which is worse.
I still don't see why the implementor would be in a better position to
decide on this question than the protocol author. And I still see the
downside that interoperability will be even less predictable if we leave
this to the implementor. E.g., client authors using XEP-0016 won't know
how to use it in a way compatible with XEP-0191.
> > If we can fix that without deprecating XEP-0016, I'm happy,
> I have don't see why we'd deprecate something that's in use simply
> because it doesn't work well with something else in use.
Because if both are used to achieve the same thing, there's a severe
interoperability issue which leads to the bad user experience mentioned
above? I would've thought that interoperability is what open standards
are mainly about.
More information about the Standards