On 4/8/10 1:49 AM, Nathan Fritz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> FYI. I might include the proposed text in XEP-0060, too. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Juser] PEP and Presence >> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:21:27 -0600 >> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Jabber/XMPP end-user discussion list <[email protected]> >> To: Jabber/XMPP end-user discussion list <[email protected]> >> >> On 4/5/10 10:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 2/20/10 4:01 PM, Peter Flindt wrote: >>>> Hello, >>> >>> Hi. Sorry about the delayed reply. >>> >>>> When I set e.g. a Mood and go offline, what should happens? >>>> >>>> a)The client send only the offline presence, the server regonize this >>>> and remove the mood >>> >>> We don't expect the server to be that smart, and in any case perhaps the >>> user wants their mood to outlast the end of their presence session. >>> >>>> b)The client SHOULD send as the last action an empty Mood to the server >>>> c)The client SHOULD do nothing, the server SHOULD do nothing too, the >>>> mood stay for all subscribers until the owner change it again >>>> d)The client SHOULD/CAN include an option "Keep the Mood, even though >>>> you offline" >>> >>> Any one of (b), (c), or (d) is a reasonable choice -- it depends on what >>> the user wants, which the client cand determine by asking the question >>> in (d). >>> >>>> e) ??? >>>> f)Is there anything that SHOULD happens if the user goes from offline >>>> to online? >>> >>> I don't think so. >>> >>>> Is this somewhere defined, what XEP or RFC? >>> >>> Not yet. We could add some text about it to XEP-0163 or XEP-0060. >> >> I've written the following text for inclusion in XEP-0163: >> >> ### >> >> Note: PEP ties the receipt of PEP notifications to the subscriber's >> presence, but does not tie the generation of PEP notifications to the >> publisher's presence. If the publisher wishes to stop generating PEP >> events (or to generate an "empty" event as can be done for some PEP >> payloads) before ending its presence session, the publisher MUST direct >> its client to do so and MUST NOT depend on the PEP service to >> automatically "zero out" its PEP information when the PEP service >> receives unavailable presence from the publisher. >> >> ### > > Maybe I'm missing something, but say my last publish was this: > > <iq from='[email protected]/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> > <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> > <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> > <item> > <tune xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> > <artist>Gerald Finzi</artist> > <length>255</length> > <source>Music for "Love's Labors Lost" (Suite for small > orchestra)</source> > <title>Introduction (Allegro vigoroso)</title> > <track>1</track> > </tune> > </item> > </publish> > </pubsub> > </iq> > > Would zeroing it out be: > > <iq from='[email protected]/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> > <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> > <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> > <item /> > </publish> > </pubsub> > </iq> > > Or: > > <iq from='[email protected]/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> > <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> > <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> > <item> > <tune xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune' /> > </item> > </publish> > </pubsub> > </iq> > > > While either is functional, I believe the first one is logical. On > the other hand, a client could potentially be confused by: > > <message from='[email protected]' > to='[email protected]/orchard' > type='headline' > id='foo'> > <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'> > <items node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> > <item /> > </items> > </event> > <delay xmlns='urn:xmpp:delay' stamp='2003-12-13T23:58:37Z'/> > </message> > > Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this. Thoughts? > However, I think that PEP needs this as a clarification if you're > going to introduce "zeroing out" language.
The spec explicitly says that the service doesn't zero out the node when the publisher goes offline, so why do we need to specify what it means to zero out the node? To date, zeroing out the node has been payload-specific. If we want to introduce a generic method for this, let's do so in 1.14. Perhaps it's time to use the issue tracker for this stuff? http://tracker.xmpp.org/ :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
