Kevin Smith wrote:
My point is that the server can't just check the suubscription state in the roster. Also it introduces a good argument for my proposed best practice of sharing presence for ad-hoc chats/interactions: http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-05.html#message-chatYes, I've agreed that sharing presence when chatting makes sense for a while, so I agree with the best practice. It does seem weird to have that the client MUST allow this to be disabled though - currently, that section reads that a client is not XMPP compliant (i.e. it breaks a MUST in the RFC) if it follows the best practices in the RFC :)
Hmm, am I missing something? The text in section 5.4 of rfc3921bis says: ***If a user exchanges messages with a contact but the user does not normally share presence with the contact via a presence subscription, it is RECOMMENDED for the user's client to send directed presence to the contact, subject to user approval (either explicitly for this contact or implicitly via a configuration setting). If a client supports this feature, it MUST allow the user to disable the feature in order to prevent presence sharing with unknown entities.
***So presence sharing is RECOMMENDED, and a client MUST allow a (paranoid) user to disable the RECOMMENDED practice of presence sharing. I don't see an outright contradiction there. A tension, perhaps. :)
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________
