> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:22:33PM +0000, Nathan Fritz wrote: > > I don't see this as being the client's job. > > I completly agree! My view was about how the client could fix that > problem. And rather than the workarounds, a real solution would be > more desireable than quirks&hacks. And a server side solution would > of course be even more desireable :-) > > [.snip.] > > I don't believe that the client should take it upon itself to nag > > about presence, as presence is high traffic enough as it is. > > I indeed agree with that. Having clients polling is very undesireable > w.r.t. bandwidth and traffic. > > [.trunc.]
Right. And nobody will argue with you on that point. As I mentioned a few posts back we have all been talking about this on the Standards list quite a bit and have made good progress. There is, however, the tactical issue at hand which I believe this email is about: it will take weeks/months/years for server changes to address ghosting to propagate the net. Until then the client can use something like the IQ method I mentioned before (sparingly) to make sure the other endpoint is still available. Auto updates in clients make this happen much faster than everyone hosting servers will do upgrades. -JD
