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 <show>dnd</show>. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
