On 5/29/12 4:31 PM, Goffi wrote: > Le 29/05/2012 19:01, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : >> So it sounds as if you're a target user for privacy lists. :) I'm not >> necessarily interested in forbidding or deprecating privacy lists, but >> in general I think they're complicated and that invisiblity and >> blocking are the most common use cases, and that *most* people can be >> served by XEP-0186 for invisibility and XEP-0191 for blocking. At >> least, that is my working hypothesis. Peter > > I'm OK for simplifying invisibility, as long as privacy lists are not > deprecated: they are really useful IMHO.
Yes, that is the approach I foresee. One of the challenges for server implementers is keeping their privacy-lists datastore in sync with changes caused by client use of the invisibility command (XEP-0186) or the blocking command (XEP-0191). But that might be more of an implementation detail than something we need to specify deeply in the protocol specs. > Generally speaking, I'm working a lot, and will work a lot in the future > with roster groups. Good to know. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
