Just my two cents. The muted state seems a lot like going offline to me. Preferring muted over offline is just admitting that our catch-up mechanisms don't work. And if that's true we should really be improving those instead.
Furthermore I'm afraid that muted will put a lot of stress on the server. And the actual benefits in regards to battery consumption are unclear. I'm not sure we have reached the full potential of <inactive/> yet. (Thinking about delaying 'unimportant' IQs for example) cheers Daniel 2016-10-24 15:45 GMT+02:00 Holger Weiß <[email protected]>: > * Matthew Wild <[email protected]> [2016-10-24 13:51]: >> and (assuming the example of a mobile phone) the user may manually >> check the screen for notifications even if other forms of alerting the >> user are muted. > > Hmm. The client could send <muted/> only after emitting the first > notification? :-) (Nah.) > >> Second thought: at this point you'd be connected, but implying to the >> server that you basically don't want to receive any stanzas. Why >> remain connected? > > You might want to keep the session alive, e.g. to not actually miss > messages, and to not fall out of MUC rooms. Assuming ubiquitous MAM > support, this use case is probably becoming less relevant though. > > So, good points, thanks for the feedback. > > Holger > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
