On 10/29/07, Tomasz Sterna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dnia 29-10-2007, Pn o godzinie 12:17 +0100, Michal 'vorner' Vaner pisze: > > No, it doesn't. Look at mcabber. You can be unavailable and still keep > > the connection. You can even send messages from unavailable resource. > > You're right. > I definitely need to sleep more. > > But I would rather call it "bound" not "active". There may be no > activity on bound connection. :-)
The definition as per RFC is "active", hence I stated that. I doubt there's a need to define yet another state :-) But really, a resource can ping-pong between active and available states by sending presence stanzas of available and unavailable respectively. Instead of changing a particular implementation that does what seems "right" and sends roster pushes to "active" resources instead of the "available" ones, I'd like this to be part of the new spec - with appropriate consensus, of course. Regards, Vinod.
