tis 2008-10-14 klockan 11:56 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre: > Marcus Lundblad wrote: > > > One thing I was thinking about is determining the amount of time a user > > has been "idle". The way it works now is that, using this XEP, you'd > > send out an <iq/> get to find out. > > Yes, polling is bad. > > Do users really want the idle time? Is this a popular feature? >
It's probably not the most useful feature of IM :) But it could have some uses. Let's say you sign in and a contact is shown as idle for 12 min. Then the probability is higher that the user has just gone away for say a cup of coffe and is back soon. Whereas when the idle time shows 2 hours, (s)he is probably not at home at all... But then again, I wouldn't say this is something I find use for very often... > > There is no way for a client to "push" this information as part of it's > > presence. One workaround could be to issue an <iq/> requesting "last" > > info when we receive an updated presence from a contact. But this > > wouldn't allow a client to be idle while still remaining "available", > > which could be desirable. > > I think the natural way to send idle time would be to include a notation > when changing from available to away, or > from away to extended away. > Sounds reasonable. > > I guess this might be out-of-scope for this XEP, and might be better > > handled in the core protocol, maybe... > > I think we'd put this in a small presence extension, not in the core RFCs. > > Peter //Marcus
