On 29 February 2016 at 17:30, Fabian Beutel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I think the MUC XEP (xep-0045) would benefit greatly from giving users > the option to opt-out of the presence broadcasting of other users. > > I'd rather put effort into MIX rather than band-aids on '45. > Having to deal with all the presence stanzas causes a lot of traffic > that is not really neccessary in some situations (such as Whatsapp-like > members-only rooms) and may prove a real problem for mobile applications. > > When joining a room, the user could include some kind of flag in the > initial presence stanza that prevents the server from sending all the > other presences and goes straight to sending back the new occupants > presence (as confirmation for a successful join). > > Do you think that would be a possible addition to the MUC XEP? I'm not > familiar with the process of proposing updates to existing and > well-established XEPs, but I think this would be a rather simple > addition which would not break compatibility. > > I also believe that this was part of what the authors of the recently > proposed MUC-light [1] protocol tried to solve. The latter would still, > of course, have the advantage of being much simpler overall, but other > than that I don't see any more real downsides. > > A future effort could then try to propose additional XEPs for a subset > of the MUC functionality, so that in the end we would get a > MUC-compatible MUC-light-version. > > Do you have any thoughts? Did I miss something? > > Best regards, > Fabian Beutel > > [1] http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-light.html > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
