Hi, if it's not too late about this XEP (sorry if it is)... Remko Tronçon Wrote: > > Supporting it doesn't mean you advertise it, which only becomes clear > lower in the xep. > > > > > > > > I agree. > > In fact would it be possible to even have a finer grained > > advertisement? That would join the "security considerations", but > > instead of implementing this at client level, it could be at server > > level?.. For instance, you may configure that you want to advertise this > > feature only to people from a certain group, or even to some specific > > people only. Hence the server would advertise this feature only to these > > people and they would not forward a "attention" from the others, even if > > their clients send one anyway (removing the "attention" element, but > > still sending the "message" element... maybe also adding some > > information that an attention has been removed?). > > This way, if I am working for instance, I may set the attention to my > > work-mates (because they can have urgent matters regarding my current > > activity) but refuse all other "attention". > > > > > > XMPP Extensions Editor;4530 Wrote: > > > > > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack > > > or to clarify an existing protocol? > > > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > > > and requirements? > > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > > > why not? > > > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? > > > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? > > > > > > Your feedback is appreciated!> > > > > > > > 1. I am not fond of such feature, at least the way I saw it used by > > some people (I saw such a thing was existing in MSN and some people > > I met who were using it were just complaining about having to block > > some people, etc.), and also because it is very intrusive. But well > > used (like the working guy case), so with fine grained > > configuration, it may be nice... > > 2. Yes. > > 3. I have currently no usable code where such high level feature > > could be used. But if I had a functional client, knowing that many > > users love this kind of feature, I would probably consider it in my > > todo list... but only with fine grained control (so if not at server > > level, at least at my client's level). > > 4. Maybe even from people authorized to send this kind of > > attention, there should be some limit? Wouldn't it be an issue if > > some of my contact were sending me a hundred of "attention" and if > > my screen would keep shaking/vibrating/etc.? > > 5. Easy to read and understand. So accurate and clear, yes.
-- Jehan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911 View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=966
