Thanks for the responses! Yes, I completely agree no attempts should be made to standardize UI. Matthew, I agree with your specific suggestions to the examples. I suppose what I meant was, is there any best practice on aggregating presence information? (answer is, "no"). XMPP servers specifically do not attempt to aggregate presence so I was approaching it from the client perspective. Do you think an best practices XEP about client aggregation of presence information would gain any traction/interest?
Thanks, Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Miller Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:31 PM To: Jabber/XMPP software development list Subject: Re: [jdev] Making sense of different presence info from different endpoints -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 19, 2012, at 18:03, Chris Eagan wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any guidance or recommendation about how an XMPP client should show > a contact's presence if it receives different presence information from > different endpoints? > > Examples: > > Say [email protected] has [email protected] in her contact list. > > 1: [email protected] sends a probe to [email protected] and receives back presence > from 2 different endpoints, each with the same priority - one has no show > type and the other has show=dnd. Should [email protected]'s client show that > [email protected] is available (e.g. "green") or busy (e.g. "red")? > This is not official, and subjective to my personal views, but I would recommend using the following to determine which to display: 1) highest priority (treat a missing <priority/> as <priority>0</priority>) 2) timestamp, via jabber:x:delay or urn:xmpp:delay (treat a missing timestamp as timestamp==received time) 3) order parsed from the stream I personally would not incorporate <show/> unless you want to get into a bikeshedding war with your users (-: > 2: [email protected] has 2 endpoints that have recently sent presence updates with > no type or show. [email protected]'s client show's [email protected] as available. > [email protected] signs out one of his endpoints and that endpoint sends a > presence unavailable stanza. One could assume [email protected] is still > available because his other endpoint has not sent a presence update. > However, it appears some clients will actually show [email protected] as offline > in this case. > I would submit bugs against these clients. > 3: [email protected] sends different statuses in presence stanzas from different > endpoints, how should [email protected]'s client present this? > I personally would only display the information from the most "relevant" presence, using the ordering rules above. > Is there any "official" or documented guidance on how [email protected]'s client > should behave in these cases? > no comment (-: - - m&m Matthew A. Miller <http://goo.gl/LK55L> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP4SfvAAoJEJq6Ou0cgrSP118H/1po/kxEbC7KSLLJBd6scb6P 1kaBlQxnwctNJD6uDvODpBYxzHJPhtVajAggLM81KtEZ3V0oNPMEJDs1acW1nAa5 3+44HGMq3Zp7Ic3qx6bGARYNTNePaMeYmJ1brdBu5YbuxZeCU1nLWOEiVHPWYvQ0 czrx/XyI/8XBLmvhoFu1p9UHZMJsygtC6e1Kxo0Xiu/nyFlPuE/nSo5QEUF7ZvCK nwHzS2A3UiMNuceydw6xHucYWzX1gmri1s/oQBr0Rp8/ecK+YrGq2xAUMnQNa9kC pbbBjf8jxS/b7aqxjS3Yb6kVgQ3CZKWEjZi3mFelkLeg/jfrcHdO6ZDc5c0/JqM= =vJdk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
