On 7/21/11 8:28 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Jul 20 23:00:33 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> If there is only one resource online and the resource updates
presence but remains available.
>
This seems reasonable.
> If the locked resource updates presence but changes only <status/>.
I don't agree with this one. There are clients that, most often at the
explicit direction of their users, only update <status/>.
Well, I think that's the point, and it's fine to stay locked. If the
change of any informational aspect of presence has to cause unlocking,
then you should be mandating unlocking on several PEP events, too.
Unlock on ever tune change! ;-)
But we don't have to agree, here - just give the first case above as a
"for example", and note that it's always safe to unlock.
WFM.
/psa
