On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 May 2012 17:53, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 5/29/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >>> On 29 May 2012 17:12, Philipp Hancke <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> XEP-0186 move to Draft so that we can deprecate XEP-0018 and XEP-0126. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd note that in 3.1.1. the server MUST NOT send presence probes when being >>>> the client is in invisible mode. Of course that makes invisibility much >>>> less >>>> useful ;-) >> >> Perhaps that is my diabolical plan! ;-) >> >>> I've mentioned before here that this is one of the few changes I would >>> like to make to the XEP - add an attribute such as probe='true' to >>> allow the client to ask the server to probe contacts (with the >>> consequence of not necessarily being so "invisible" any more). >> >> That slightly complicates this ultra-simple extension. Since the 'probe' >> attribute would default to FALSE, I'd be fine with adding this feature >> (as long as people understand the implications). > > Given that it is currently ultra-simple I'm happy to bump it up to > plain 'simple' with the addition of an optional attribute. Philipp is > right about not sending probes being problematic... other IM networks > do not show all contacts offline when you are invisible, it's quite > user-unfriendly to do that. > > Still, it does have privacy issues - and thus I'm happy to push the > choice to client developers (they can either make the choice for their > users, or push the choice to users through a one-time prompt or such). > I don't think this is the kind of choice that should be made by > protocol designers, sometimes users are willing to risk theoretical > presence leaks just to avoid their boss seeing them online on a > Saturday :)
We already have invisibility that works if you're happy with not seeing contacts' presence - not sending your own :) /K
