Gabriel Soto wrote: >> Personally I don't care about invisibility. If you want to get some, you >> have to give some. Life is hard. > > Yep, I got that answer before... > Personally I don't care either; mmm... except for the fact that I'm > implementing a client that requires the feature :) > I know that many people use it, though; and I believe that most > instant messengers have it, right?
Yes they do. > In my opinion, if the user has to compromise in order to be invisible > that could be completely valid, but let it be a design decision and > not a consequence of an omission in the protocols. Agreed. > I think that the > kind of compromises involved here wouldn't make much sense to a user, > the behavior is too complex and random, it would appear as a bug > instead of something intentional. What's the point in having a > protocol that acts unintuitively? > > I guess that something like the XEP-0186 > [http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html] would be the proper way > to go for invisibility in the end... Probably. One of these years we'll standardize on something correct for invisibility. I think XEP-0186 is the best way to do because doing it with privacy lists is quite complex IMHO. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
