[JDEV] On Privacy/Invisibility (aka: Buddy Permit/Deny)

[Peter Millard]

I used <item> as the tag for a few reasons:

1) It keeps consistancy w/ the roster protocol.
2) It allows the type attribute to be used for: allow|deny|remove. Using
allow and deny as the element names would mean we'd have to come up w/ a new
way of removing items from the list.

Otherwise, I find that often this is just a XML syntax "religious" issue :)
If we just needed allow & deny, I'd agree to use the element names. But the
removal issue is the big reason I went with a generic <item> tag.

Peter M.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Louis Seguineau" <jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com>
To: <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] On Privacy/Invisibility (aka: Buddy Permit/Deny)


> Peter
>
> After looking again at JEP-0016: Server-Based Privacy Rules
> (jabber:iq:privacy), wouldn't it be interresting to use "allow"/"deny" as
> type instead of "block" in the item tag. This way the namespace would be
> able to manage both the blacklist and the whitelist in a single process.
>
> Jean-Louis