[jdev] current state of "invisibility"

[Matthew Miller]

On Apr 30, 2012, at 11:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 4/30/12 9:45 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Mon Apr 30 17:17:12 2012, Daniel Dormont wrote:
>>> I've been asked to add invisibility to my XMPP-based application.
>> 
>> I think the "right" thing is to use XEP-0186, but that's seen very
>> limited support on the server.
>> 
>> I'm increasingly finding some interesting use-cases for invisibility,
>> such as email clients that need to be presence aware - I don't see a
>> need for confusing the contacts' roster by showing myself online when
>> I'm not, as such.
> 
> Isn't that presence with negative priority?
> 

Negative priority is potentially a hint to the UA not to display to the receiving user, but that requires the client to do the right thing and treat negative priority as offline/unavailable.  Few clients (most likely none) do the right thing today.

I believe it matters if that information is concerning or not.  If not, then simple negative priority is probably fine.  If it is, then negative priority + invisibility is necessary.


- m&m

Matthew A. Miller
<http://goo.gl/LK55L>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2238 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20120430/bf9f3b7a/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20120430/bf9f3b7a/attachment-0001.pgp>