[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists

Holger Weiß 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 mailing list