On 9 August 2011 20:19, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/9/11 4:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> On 9 August 2011 18:53, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I've had several conversations recently with folks who indicate that >>> they'd like a presence extension for what we could call communication >>> context -- basically a machine-readable version of some of the strings >>> that go into the <status/> element. Examples might include: >>> >>> 1. in-a-meeting (could be IRL or virtual) >>> >>> 2. on-mic (for audio chat) >>> >>> 3. on-camera (for video chat) >>> >>> 4. disconnected (cf. XEP-0198 when the stream hasn't been resumed yet) >>> >>> 5. something like "engaged IRL, can't communicate" (similar to but >>> broader than parent-over-shoulder, e.g. things like being on stage) >>> >> >> >> I'm not convinced I see any of the use-cases except for 4, which I >> think would be very useful :) >> >> Keen to see a spec, which might enlighten me as to the others. > > Yes, spec to follow. > > I know that Openfire used to have automated integration with Asterisk so > that if you accepted a voice call, your presence would automatically > change to "On the Phone". On the WebEx team we do something similar, > although the magic string is "In a WebEx Meeting". I don't know if any > voice and video clients currently do something similar, but the Jitsi > team was keen on this a while back for their Jingle integration. I've > heard of use cases for "engaged IRL" but I will seek out the people who > pinged me about it to double-check. >
That makes perfect sense, but I guess my mental block is... isn't that what PEP is for? Whereas #4 is more "this /is/ my presence, but technically I don't have a connection to my server". That's more a protocol thing. Regards, Matthew
