On Thu Jan 21 05:45:27 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Well, your server could send those interim presence changes right
now,
because that's allowed but not required by RFC 3921 (IIRC). This is
something we might want to take up in the XMPP WG.
It can? I believe a broadcast presence change is sent only to roster
contacts, and moreover this is actually relied upon by some clients.
Doing this via <message/> instead of <presence/>, and using message
mine-ing or a similar technology to retract the decloak requests
that
were delivered to the other resources, would at least enable the
other
clients to remove those popups at the other resources. Rob and I had
some discussions about <message/> vs. <presence/> for decloaking
and I
think it's worth it to continue that discussion.
Yes, but again, mime-ing requires all clients *and* the server for a
user to play the same game, plus it throws away priority entirely.
We have a facility already for clients requesting access to another
parties presence that does all this - it's called a subscription.
I suppose I've yet to put my finger on what's fundamentally so
different about decloaking that it needs a wholly different mechanism
to operate.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
