Dne úterý 04 duben 2006 20:58 Vinod Panicker napsal(a): > On 4/5/06, Robert McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > Some servers support the old-style <presence tyle='invisible'/> (which > > > was deprecated for various reasons when we published the XMPP RFCs). > > > > Yes, but Google Talk doesn't support this *or* jabber:iq:privacy. If I > > send <presence type="unavailable"/> to gtalk, then it still sends > > incoming presence to me, and only allows incoming messages if I've sent > > outgoing messages to that person. Is this normal, or Google-specific? > > This behaviour would be against the RFC. The RFC states that presence > notifications are to be sent to "available" resources. By sending > presence of type unavailable, the resource goes into the "active" > state. In this state, the server should not be delivering it presence > notifications, nor messages. >
Yes, we should ask them to fix it. And even better, to support other required thinsg, like jabber:iq:privacy and even the usual services, like offline messages, private xml storage and vcards. Byt yes, I know it is still beta :D But now seriously, I'm glad google is pushing XMPP to 'normal' users, and I thank it for that, but it could do a bit better picture - the offline messages would be nice. -- Ostatně soudím, že uzavřené protokoly a formáty by měly být zničeny, stejně jako Kartágo. Michal Vaner (Vorner)
pgpayUOjgZlph.pgp
Description: PGP signature
