On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:39:20PM -0700, Steven Brown wrote: > There's a pub-sub approach (like you're getting at) and a bcc approach, > but you can't get the user's trustees those ways (promiscuous presence > should only go to those who aren't trustees), there are issues sending > to the connected set of users on the same server and resisting probes > from other servers, and they are unnecessarily complex. Promiscuous > presence is a simple tweak to the available state and conceptually just > looks really clean.
I have no problem with promiscuous presence, but I do have a problem with promiscuous protocols. :) Making it use a child element in another namespace is the right way to go -- adding a new presence type is just bad form IMHO since the core protocol is now defined by the IETF. /psa _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
