Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Am 20.11.2008 um 19:53 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: > >> 1. What if you don't share presence with the other party and therefore >> can't receive caps data? I assume you'd need to send a service discovery >> request or share directed presence. > > That is some thing we need to rework anyway, I think. IMO, when we don't > share presence, we should send a directed presence directly after the > first message - this should be a seperate XEP or even part of XMPP > Messaging or Core.
Oh for sure, it doesn't belong in XEP-0085, because it applies to all chat sessions in general. In rfc3921bis you will find the following text as a recommended best practice for chat sessions: If a user exchanges message stanzas with another entity but does not share presence with the entity based on a presence subscription, it is RECOMMENDED for the user's client to send directed presence to the other entity. > When we close the chat window (or manually using some button in the > client), we could send an unavailable presence again - and also when we > disconnect, of course. Same for invisibility. It is incredible annoying > when someone who's invisible messages you and lots of stuff doesn't work > therefore (like sending a file). I don't agree with sending unavailable when you close the chat window. You might close it right before your contact sends you another reply and then what is their client supposed to do? That seems unnecessary. When you go offline your server will send unavailable, and that seems good enough to me. >> 2. If you don't know (via disco/caps) that the other party supports >> XEP-0085, does the spec need to say that you (a) "MUST NOT" or (b) >> "SHOULD NOT" send chat state notifications? > > A "MUST NOT" would mean all old clients break it, so I think a "SHOULD > NOT" is better. I'm fine with SHOULD NOT. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
