[Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Sep 30 08:07:13 UTC 2015


On 29.09.2015 22:02, Sam Whited wrote:
> I've brought up reconciling privacy lists and the blocking command in
> the past [1], but the discussion faltered and it never went before the
> council. It was brought up as part of a recent discussion again [2],
> and I'd like to formally propose that it be deprecated.
> 
> I have made a pull request here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/104

> 
> As I see it, privacy lists are complicated and don't work well with
> the blocking command in practice. As an example, if I block a user (on
> an ejabberd server) in Gajim (which uses privacy lists), and then view
> the same user in Conversations (which suports the blocking command),
> that user does not appear blocked because Gajim's privacy list is
> slightly different from what the server considers "blocked" so it's
> never mapped to the privacy lists.

Can't that be solved without deprecating privacy lists? E.g. by defining
a privacy list item which exactly maps to a blocked xep191 user?

> The majority of the functionality of privacy lists is covered by
> 
> - XEP-0191: Blocking command
> - XEP-0186: Invisibility
> 
> While privacy lists do have other functionality, it is rarely used.

According to which analysis or to whom?

> Deprecating privacy lists 

Can you deprecate something without having an equal powerful alternative
at hand?

I don't think it's the right time to deprecate privacy lists. There is
no equal alternative available, nor, as far as I can tell, has there
been any effort attempting to solving the interop issues.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150930/4cea5c26/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list