Matthew Wild wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] >> We had rough consensus that the server would not change its processing >> of your outbound presence, i.e., it would send your presence to your >> entire contact list, not only contacts in the group(s) you specify via >> roster views. >> > > I was of the impression that it would also apply to outgoing > presences, and the filtered roster would essentially become your > roster for that session. I don't know what others think though.
I could go either way. If roster views result in filtering of your outbound presence then they are essentially a replacement for (some of) what's now in privacy lists. I like that idea a lot because I don't like privacy lists. :) >> If people think this would be useful, I'd be happy to write a small spec >> about it. Right now I don't think this belongs in rfc3921bis but I could >> be persuaded to change my mind about that (e.g., it might make sense to >> have both roster versioning and roster views in the same core spec). >> > > I think I already said somewhere that I believe this should be in > core, versioning should be a XEP. Requiring all implementations to > support versioning just feels wrong, and I tend to like smaller specs. > However I understand if others don't feel the same way. I think that either both versioning and views belong in rfc3921bis or neither does. The syntax of what's currently in XEP-0237 (using an attribute to indicate the version number) makes it difficult to split it out into a XEP, but I suppose that could be overcome. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
