On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > Matthew Wild wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> >> wrote: >>> [...] >>> We had rough consensus that the server would not change its processing >>> of your outbound presence, i.e., it would send your presence to your >>> entire contact list, not only contacts in the group(s) you specify via >>> roster views. >>> >> >> I was of the impression that it would also apply to outgoing >> presences, and the filtered roster would essentially become your >> roster for that session. I don't know what others think though. > > I could go either way. If roster views result in filtering of your > outbound presence then they are essentially a replacement for (some of) > what's now in privacy lists. I like that idea a lot because I don't like > privacy lists. :) >
As a user I like that idea a lot, because it cuts out privacy lists. As a developer I like it a lot because it cuts out privacy lists :) Roster groups/tags are pretty flexible. This combined with simple blocking of users (and a way to enable/disable receiving messages from people not on your roster) is all that is required in most cases I believe, particularly for end-users. >>> If people think this would be useful, I'd be happy to write a small spec >>> about it. Right now I don't think this belongs in rfc3921bis but I could >>> be persuaded to change my mind about that (e.g., it might make sense to >>> have both roster versioning and roster views in the same core spec). >>> >> >> I think I already said somewhere that I believe this should be in >> core, versioning should be a XEP. Requiring all implementations to >> support versioning just feels wrong, and I tend to like smaller specs. >> However I understand if others don't feel the same way. > > I think that either both versioning and views belong in rfc3921bis or > neither does. The syntax of what's currently in XEP-0237 (using an > attribute to indicate the version number) makes it difficult to split it > out into a XEP, but I suppose that could be overcome. > That's funny, it wasn't like that last week... ;-) I'm not too fussed, it's going to be somewhere at the end of the day, doesn't really affect me where it ends up. Matthew
