Pavel Simerda wrote: > 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.
Right. As far as I can see, there is no way to avoid unwanted side effects with invisibility (no matter whether it is implemented via XEP-0018, XEP-0126, or XEP-0186). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
