Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
Daniel Noll wrote: > On Friday 06 July 2007 01:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> We *could* do that with the video phone activity. It's a bit of a >> borderline case, but IMHO it's going to be common enough that we want to >> define a separate activity for it. > > Video phones may become common enough one day (when Cisco stop thinking the > privilege is worth paying four times the price of a normal phone, there will > probably be a boom in them) but if you want other types of phone that are > already common enough to split into their own sections, I'm sure there are > plenty. Talking on a mobile vs. talking on a landline, for instance? > Talking on a VOIP softphone vs. using a "real" phone? Feel free to define extensions for that in your own namespace. >>> 2. We already have presence for the other user to determine if I'm >>> contactable. i.e. can I not just set DND while on a video call? >> XEP-0108 is for things that are much more granular than dnd. > > That's why I will suggest doing both. Set activity to "on the phone" and > status to "dnd". That's more specific than doing either independently, and > doesn't even require inventing a new type of phone which may not even add any > useful information to the other user. What you do with presence is out of scope for XEP-0108. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
On Friday 06 July 2007 01:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > We *could* do that with the video phone activity. It's a bit of a > borderline case, but IMHO it's going to be common enough that we want to > define a separate activity for it. Video phones may become common enough one day (when Cisco stop thinking the privilege is worth paying four times the price of a normal phone, there will probably be a boom in them) but if you want other types of phone that are already common enough to split into their own sections, I'm sure there are plenty. Talking on a mobile vs. talking on a landline, for instance? Talking on a VOIP softphone vs. using a "real" phone? > > 2. We already have presence for the other user to determine if I'm > > contactable. i.e. can I not just set DND while on a video call? > > XEP-0108 is for things that are much more granular than dnd. That's why I will suggest doing both. Set activity to "on the phone" and status to "dnd". That's more specific than doing either independently, and doesn't even require inventing a new type of phone which may not even add any useful information to the other user. Daniel pgpy1fhx1BcxZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
Daniel Noll wrote: >> Daniel Noll wrote: >>> doesn't really matter to me. They're all phones. >> If I'm on an audio call, I might be able to IM with you in the >> background without the other person knowing. But I can't very well get >> away with that on a video call. So I think the distinction provides >> useful information wrt my ability to communicate. And that's what >> extended presence is all about, no? > > Hmm... that could be a thought. Although... > > 1. There are already activities in the list which don't necessarily help > the other user determine if they can send a message. Did we say that all activities needed to help other users determine if it's appropriate to send a message? > e.g. for > "gaming", if they're playing Solitaire, I'd say they can respond to > messages. There are games where they can't. XEP-0108 is extensible. People can always define more precise sub-activities if they want to. We *could* do that with the video phone activity. It's a bit of a borderline case, but IMHO it's going to be common enough that we want to define a separate activity for it. > 2. We already have presence for the other user to determine if I'm > contactable. i.e. can I not just set DND while on a video call? XEP-0108 is for things that are much more granular than dnd. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
> Daniel Noll wrote: >> doesn't really matter to me. They're all phones. > > If I'm on an audio call, I might be able to IM with you in the > background without the other person knowing. But I can't very well get > away with that on a video call. So I think the distinction provides > useful information wrt my ability to communicate. And that's what > extended presence is all about, no? Hmm... that could be a thought. Although... 1. There are already activities in the list which don't necessarily help the other user determine if they can send a message. e.g. for "gaming", if they're playing Solitaire, I'd say they can respond to messages. There are games where they can't. 2. We already have presence for the other user to determine if I'm contactable. i.e. can I not just set DND while on a video call? Daniel -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://noll.id.au/daniel/
Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
Daniel Noll wrote: >> Someone poked me about adding the following activity to XEP-0108: >> >> talking/on_video_phone >> >> Which seems reasonable and I'm happy to add it to the spec. But it >> strikes me that we might just want to have a registry for this kind of >> thing, eh? :) > > A registry would be nice, but mind you, I still consider this particular > example to fall under on_the_phone. > > Whether it's a mobile, a landline phone, a 3G video mobile, a VOIP client, > a VOIP hardphone, two tin cans and a piece of string or a future phone > which projects the other talker in a 3D hologram... doesn't really matter > to me. They're all phones. If I'm on an audio call, I might be able to IM with you in the background without the other person knowing. But I can't very well get away with that on a video call. So I think the distinction provides useful information wrt my ability to communicate. And that's what extended presence is all about, no? /psa smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
> Someone poked me about adding the following activity to XEP-0108: > > talking/on_video_phone > > Which seems reasonable and I'm happy to add it to the spec. But it > strikes me that we might just want to have a registry for this kind of > thing, eh? :) A registry would be nice, but mind you, I still consider this particular example to fall under on_the_phone. Whether it's a mobile, a landline phone, a 3G video mobile, a VOIP client, a VOIP hardphone, two tin cans and a piece of string or a future phone which projects the other talker in a 3D hologram... doesn't really matter to me. They're all phones. To me it feels like adding "playing_monopoly" despite already having "gaming". Daniel -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://noll.id.au/daniel/
[Standards] XEP-0108: registry?
Someone poked me about adding the following activity to XEP-0108: talking/on_video_phone Which seems reasonable and I'm happy to add it to the spec. But it strikes me that we might just want to have a registry for this kind of thing, eh? :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
