-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/18/09 12:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > 2009/5/18 Jiří Zárevúcky <[email protected]>: >> Well, until now I believed that "unavailable" presence doesn't mean >> "show me offline", but "make me unavailable for presence exchange and >> messaging". But you're right, it doesn't really matter. >> >> Anyway, if SIFT capable client went invisible mid-session, it could do >> so by sending unavailable presence. But possibly without any prior >> SIFT command. So I think it should be noted that either supporting >> client must use sift to initiate it's "SIFT based session" prior to >> using such invisibility, or the server must not terminate the >> communication availability even when there was no explicit SIFT. If >> it is not specified, the first possibility should be implicit for the >> client developer to avoid problems, but I'm afraid not everyone would >> realize that. > > Agree. The default is not to sift, and we may not have captured that > adequately in the draft yet. We also need to make it explicit that > you can change your sift rules at any time. > > There is still a use case for priority -1 presence; I'm a presence > publisher that doesn't want to receive messages. The -1 here is a > hint to the sender that they shouldn't expect me to get this message > if they send it right now. We probably need to add text like this: > > If a client requests message sifting, but sends presence, it SHOULD > send priority -1 as a hint to subscribers.
Done. I'm also adding a bit more on the requirements per this: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2009-May/002562.html Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoTL+kACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyXFACg9KEYloIErxcosCXyksMlqsPq pX8AnieoBSFZVrp0z43aqmi2j6sjNVm1 =Felf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
