On 03.12.2014 23:39, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 03.12.2014 19:16, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0319 >> (Last User Interaction in Presence). >> >> Abstract: This specification defines a way to communicate time of last user >> interaction with her system using XMPP presence notifications. >> >> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0319.html >> >> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on >> 2014-12-17. >> >> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send your >> feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list: >> >> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or >> to clarify an existing protocol? > > Christian and Tobias already gave good pro and contra arguments. It > comes down to: Does the usage of absolute timestamps justify a new XEP?
BTW was it ever discussed to *simply* extend XEP-12 (and thus XEP-256) with an (optional) 'timestamp' attribute that contains an absolute time value? Such a change would come with all the advantages XEP-319 provides, but without the disadvantages - to have multiple XEPs for the same goal - to force libraries to abstract that Furthermore adding 'timestamp' would be fully backward compatible, if we say that if it's set, 'seconds' must also exist [1]. It's also easier to implement: I would guess adding one or two LOCs to existing XEP-12/-256 implementations plus the logic that favors timestamp over seconds, compared to implementing a new extension element and the abstraction layer. In XEP-12 terms the timestamp value would mean - the time the user logged out for § 3 - the time the user went idle for § 4 - the time the service was started for § 5 If I'm not overlooking something, I would prefer this solution over XEP-319. - Florian 1: As goody, this means one can calculate the lag of the presence stanza. :)
