Silly question:
Why not just have invisible as a presence mode, and remove the silly
enforced empty <presence/> at initialization?
/stefan
Peter Saint-Andre skrev 16/07/14 17:11:
On 6/19/14, 9:30 PM, Lance Stout wrote:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
This is a feature that has received a lot of end-user requests, and
we have no other good way to do it, so yes.
If anyone is going to ever implement this feature, let's have a
thought out approach for them instead of horrible hacks.
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
introduction and requirements?
Yes, it does.
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
I've implemented this twice already on the client side - in SleekXMPP
and stanza.io.
However, I'm not aware of any server-side implementation to use those
with.
I've been talking about adding it to Prosody. :-)
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
As mentioned in the XEP, it's still very easy to expose the fact that
you're online, but any method of accomplishing presence invisibility
will have that issue.
Yes, and this is one reason I don't like the entire concept of
invisibility.
However, as noted, if we're going to do invisibility (and users want
it so clients will be written to support it), then let's at least have
a reasonable protocol for it.
One thing I notice not mentioned in the XEP is client handling of
bookmarks set to auto join.
Good point. I'll add a note about that.
Peter
