-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/20/09 6:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Apr 20 12:43:02 2009, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: >> Wouldn't make it more sense to only get the PEP events of users who >> are online and get the last event of a user as soon as he signs in? >> IMO, this would make more sense and this is also how ejabberd handles >> it. > > Well, no, not really. > > Lots of "rich presence" states persist even when the user is offline. > The <status/> field, for instance, we can even set *when* we go offline, > and lots of clients (include Gajim) can make use of this. If I go > offline so I can, for example, play games, or because I've gone on > holiday, I think that my contacts should get the backdated PEP event > telling them so when I'm offline. > > And plenty of PEP items unrelated to online/offline state exist, too, so > to limit PEP to only cases when the contacts are online is simply broken.
Right. The on_sub_and_presence setting relates to the *subscriber's* presence, not the *publisher's* presence. > So again, I'd say: > > 1) The spec says that you get PEP events for ALL contacts, online or not. > > 2) The spec doesn't say you get events for newly online contacts. Which is consistent with the meaning of on_sub_and_presence. I'll clarify this point further in XEP-0060 and XEP-0163. /psa - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknsgREACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw5cQCgorITHZydzmOY+HvgYIPQs/Wj c/kAn1pcNpsJFmmaWBsY+xKtE4d3NJDT =O9vV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
