On 7/21/11 8:37 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Dave Cridland<[email protected]> 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.
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.
I'll go further than this, I don't think we can claim it's a best
practice to unlock on text-only presence changes.
I'd suggest something along the lines of: SHOULD unlock on any change
of availability (e.g. changing from away to available) and MAY unlock
on other presence changes (e.g. where the text changes).
Sounds right to me.
/psa
