Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

[Kevin Smith]

On 21 Sep 2016, at 16:21, Steve Kille  wrote:
> The sort of thing I am looking to avoid is where the server provides the
> user with a form to fill in.

By standardising common fields, we can avoid form requests in the common case 
without forcing clients to do the request dance (the same approach we took with 
MAM). Clients don’t have to implement anything other than the required fields, 
so don’t have any additional complexity, and for servers the only additional 
enforced complexity is returning a form when requested, which seems trivial. I 
don’t think we need to avoid forms in this instance, as the complexity is 
optional.

/K
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

[Steve Kille]

> -Original Message-
> From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Cridland
> Sent: 21 September 2016 15:58
> To: XMPP Standards
> Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user
> preferences
> 
> On 21 September 2016 at 14:32, Steve Kille <steve.ki...@isode.com> wrote:
> > I have not been able to think of any additional sensible per-user
> > preferences.
> 
> Users might well want to control whether they receive private messages
> through the MIX or not.
[Steve Kille] 

I think that one is worth including in MIX.


> 
> In general, unless there's a compelling reason, where there's already
> "space", I'd prefer to keep things generalizable. Allowing arbitrary
> preferences doesn't appear to introduce any further protocol round-trips,
> and as long as optional preferences are truly optional - that is, there's
an
> expectation that clients may ignore them - then this seems the more
future-
> proof option.

[Steve Kille] 

If you define things in MIX, the protocol becomes cleaner (in my view).

This mechanism can also allow for proprietary extensions agreed between
client and server.

The sort of thing I am looking to avoid is where the server provides the
user with a form to fill in.


Steve



___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

[Dave Cridland]

On 21 September 2016 at 14:32, Steve Kille  wrote:
> I have not been able to think of any additional sensible per-user
> preferences.

Users might well want to control whether they receive private messages
through the MIX or not.

In general, unless there's a compelling reason, where there's already
"space", I'd prefer to keep things generalizable. Allowing arbitrary
preferences doesn't appear to introduce any further protocol
round-trips, and as long as optional preferences are truly optional -
that is, there's an expectation that clients may ignore them - then
this seems the more future-proof option.

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___