Hi, On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Florian Zeitz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21.08.2011 20:15, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Florian Zeitz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think we might need a PubSub profile that allows more configurability >>> in terms of who may see what data (this is quite interesting in terms of >>> most social networking related work too). >> >> That's XEP--0060, isn't it? I realise most servers choose to only >> implement the minimal -163 subset, but I hope this will move towards >> full -60 support over time. >> >> /K > > After double checking turns out for the access-model configuration > that's even PEP (MUST support presence, open, roster, and whitelist).
Yes PEP already supports other models. That's in the same section (5. Recommended Defaults) of PEP where they say the default should be "presence". So I was definitely not advocating "only" for more configurability, but for a default which I think is most adapted to the rest of the world. Also if I dare to speak for the world, that's only because I cannot but notice that this is the current use of avatars: Gravatar is by far the most used avatar system (but centralized and totally not standard) and it has a fully public "access model". I guess most people just want their avatar to be set at one place, never to care about it again and then see it everywhere without restriction. But yes, I totally agree that configuration is a plus and we must totally not strip this feature out (that's also why I prefer the PEP to the vcard XEP). Just I'll prefer another default for this specific node. > I'm not sure how server support for this really is though. I can only say by test that the avatar node on ejabberd seems indeed accessible to the roster only. I will make some tests for configuration change on the node. I guess I'll be able to test on M-link as well with jabber.org. > Maybe we can encourage client developers to really give users that > choice in the UI? (Gajim appears to have some configuration interface to > modify existing nodes [that I have never had working], but general > choices what to do when creating e.g. an avatar node I have not seen > anywhere yet) Yes. But even though it is internally used as "node configuration", on user point of view, that's just their avatar access. When users change avatar for instance, a user should just have to check a box "keep it private (roster only)" or something similar. Nothing more complicated. Jehan
