On 30 May 2017, at 15:37, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2017-05-30 16:28 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <[email protected]>: >> On 30 May 2017, at 15:18, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 2017-05-30 16:02 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >>>> Presence, mind, I'm not so sold on - I think it's significantly less >>>> important, since presence is stateful rather than an event. But I'm >>>> not averse to it - I'd just argue that if it causes problems, just >>>> don't bother delay-stamping. >>> >>> I have no hard feelings regarding presence however if we stamp with >>> the account jid it wont cause problems. >>> And people are really obsessed with 'Last Seen' Whatapp-like >>> information. (That's how I stumbled over the problem in the first >>> place.) So in their interest it would really help to have a more >>> detailed time information on presence as well. (Mind you CSI can >>> easily delay those information by multiple hours) >> >> I’m not sure, given the peculiarities of presence probes and S2S and etc., >> that using presence for this is particularly reliable. I could wrong (again). > > For this kind of audience and in lack of a 'proper' mechanism for this > faking it seems to be good enough.
Yes, that may be. > Also stamping presences is done elsewhere as well. (Presences received > after signing in are usually stamped). Only the ‘offline’ presences, because they’re delayed, though. ‘Live’ presences aren’t. > A lot of clients show > 'Available since…' or 'Away since…' information somewhere in the UI. > So reliable or not SM/CSI should not behave different here. I think I’m arguing that stamping presence on SM/CSI *is* behaving differently. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
