Dnia 12-09-2007, Śr o godzinie 13:43 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > >>> XEP-0186 is just this sh$%^ XEP-0018 in a pretty IQ envelope.
> > Please do look at both the XEP-0016 and XEP-0186 specs. > > It is spaghetti. So many conditions, corner cases, if this than thats. > Sorry about that. We pushed that protocol into RFC 3921 before it was > fully baked, I think. Urm. I meant XEP-0018 Invisible Presence. And XEP-0186 Invisible Command is same as Invisible presence, only the trigger packet is IQ instead of presence. Both specs XEP-0016 Privacy List is actually quite good. Let's start speaking names, not numbers - less space for typos. ;-) > > We do not have to mirror patches for deficiencies in legacy > > protocols. We really could do better with Privacy Lists. > I'm sure we could. The question is: do we throw away privacy lists or > develop something better? I don't know if it is worth the time. Or at > least I'm too lazy to work on a whole new protocol. What I meant is that: We really could do better [than simple invisibility] with Privacy Lists. For the rest, let me start a new thread. :-) -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka.com http://www.xiaoka.com/
