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

[Jean Louis Seguineau]

Peter,

I think we are on the same page :)
My comment was not to change the use of the <item> tag (which keep some
consistency with other constructs), but only the type attribute of that same
tag (what you expressed in your second point).  What I meant was to use
something like:

<iq type="set" id="2">
  <query xmlns="jabber:iq:privacy">
    <item jid="jack at jabber.org" type="deny"/>
    <item jid="jill at jabber.org" type="deny">
      <message/>
      <iq/>
    </item>
    <item jid="jill at jabber.org" type="allow">
      <presence/>
    </item>
  </query>
</iq>

where the type attribute of the <item> tag which is only presented as
"block" in the JEP becomes either "deny" for black list and "allow" for
white list. This way, we should be able to bring all privacy management
under a single umbrella, with an adequate granularity.

Jean-Louis



> Message: 12
> From: "Peter Millard" <me at pgmillard.com>
> To: <jdev at jabber.org>
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] On Privacy/Invisibility (aka: Buddy Permit/Deny)
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:38:39 -0700
> Reply-To: jdev at jabber.org
>
> 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
>