On May 29, 2012, at 10:04, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On May 29, 2012, at 09:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we >>> might as well do it right. >>> >>> Some clients and servers use XEP-0018, but it violates the core XMPP >>> specs, which seems like a bad idea. >>> >>> Some clients and server use privacy lists (XEP-0016 + XEP-0126), but >>> they're complicated and I'd prefer to deprecate them if possible (that's >>> really a separate discussion topic). >>> >>> Years ago I defined a "better" solution in XEP-0186, but we never pushed >>> it forward from Experimental to Draft. I don't know if any clients and >>> servers include support for XEP-0186, but if so it would be good to >>> know. In any case, I'm wondering if folks are interested in seeing >>> XEP-0186 move to Draft so that we can deprecate XEP-0018 and XEP-0126. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> Simpler invisibility would be very nice. > > How would one make it simpler? 186 is already just one stanza. >
Let's say "Having a non-experimental protocol for invisibility would be very nice." d-: - m&m Matthew A. Miller <http://goo.gl/LK55L>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
