On Jul 22, 2011, at 15:07, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > On 7/21/11 2:15 PM, "Matthew A. Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The case Cridland is talking about is if there's a single available resource. >> In that case, not unlocking on presence updates might not be too harmful. > > There's only one available resource that you *know* about. You might be > blocked presence-out on multiple other resources. The client does not have > enough information to choose in any case that I've heard yet. >
I keep forgetting about the filters and blocks. There are recommendations that the two parties SHOULD share presence information while chatting, but yet allow the user to disable such sharing. I realize there could still be a lurking resource and emerging from that state ought to result in a presence update, but that technically such an update is not required by all such (active) specifications. I'm going to ponder that some more to see what changes should be made, if any. - m&m <http://goo.gl/voEzk>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
