On Wed Jul 20 22:43:22 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:34, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I'm concerned by the final rule in ยง2.3, which suggests that
*any* presence update from the contact SHOULD break the lock. I
think this rule is fine; however I think a short discussion of when
to ignore this rule would be useful.
Since I'm not aware of a situation where ignoring the rule is
useful, I don't have any discussion to add (-:
I can add something to the effect that "we don't know when you'd
*not* want to unlock, but you're given some slight leeway to", or I
change the SHOULD to MUST, or accept a contribution.
If there is only one resource online and the resource updates
presence but remains available.
If the locked resource updates presence but changes only <status/>.
I think it's a SHOULD, not a MUST - as I say, I'm happy with the
rule, I just think it's reasonable to say that in some cases, a
client may decide that a presence update doesn't "count".
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
