On 5/29/12 10:02 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> 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. > > I think 186 is the least offensive way to do invisibility that we > have, although it does have bits of ick in there (MUST enforce UI > behaviour).
I'm happy to revisit and remove the "ick". I looked at it again this morning for the first time in a few years, and I noticed that it needs to be updated in several respects (it still references RFC 3921 etc.). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
