On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:02:24 +0100 Artur Hefczyc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > While reviewing XEP-0186 just now, I noticed that when a resource > > goes invisible, its server must send presence of type unavailable > > from that resource. As far as I can see, when a contact's server > > receives unavailable presence from the user (and if the > > user+contact have a two-way presence subscription), it will stop > > sending presence updates to > > the user (if that was the last online resource for the user). This > > somewhat defeats the purpose of invisibility, no? The implication is > > that the user's information about the presence of its contacts > > will soon > > become stale. But I suppose that's one price you pay for > > invisibility, which I continue to think is a stupid concept > > anyway. :) > > > I thought we gave up with invisibility anyway. Especially that this > can be quite easily achieved with privacy lists without those > unwanted side effects. And privacy lists give us much more > flexibility to set invisibility > for a single user, group..... I'm afraid you missed one thing. These unwanted side effects can't be avoided. Therefore privacy lists have them too, of course. Pavel > > Artur -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
