* Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]> [2014-12-23 05:23]: > > I think that's a bad user experience. > > There's no way to do this without bad XEP 191 user experience. You > can either confuse the XEP 191 user by saying a contact is blocked > when they aren't completely blocked or say they aren't blocked when > they are partially blocked. Either way is bad. We can debate for a > long time which is worse, but they are both bad.
I fully agree. Hence my comment earlier in this thead: | Maybe we just have to admit that a sane mapping isn't possible, so those | two extensions would have to be treated as unrelated and incompatible? [ http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-December/029438.html ] > I favor leaving it to the implementor to determine which is worse. I still don't see why the implementor would be in a better position to decide on this question than the protocol author. And I still see the downside that interoperability will be even less predictable if we leave this to the implementor. E.g., client authors using XEP-0016 won't know how to use it in a way compatible with XEP-0191. > > If we can fix that without deprecating XEP-0016, I'm happy, > > I have don't see why we'd deprecate something that's in use simply > because it doesn't work well with something else in use. Because if both are used to achieve the same thing, there's a severe interoperability issue which leads to the bad user experience mentioned above? I would've thought that interoperability is what open standards are mainly about. Holger
