On 29.09.2015 22:02, Sam Whited wrote: > I've brought up reconciling privacy lists and the blocking command in > the past [1], but the discussion faltered and it never went before the > council. It was brought up as part of a recent discussion again [2], > and I'd like to formally propose that it be deprecated. > > I have made a pull request here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/104
> > As I see it, privacy lists are complicated and don't work well with > the blocking command in practice. As an example, if I block a user (on > an ejabberd server) in Gajim (which uses privacy lists), and then view > the same user in Conversations (which suports the blocking command), > that user does not appear blocked because Gajim's privacy list is > slightly different from what the server considers "blocked" so it's > never mapped to the privacy lists. Can't that be solved without deprecating privacy lists? E.g. by defining a privacy list item which exactly maps to a blocked xep191 user? > The majority of the functionality of privacy lists is covered by > > - XEP-0191: Blocking command > - XEP-0186: Invisibility > > While privacy lists do have other functionality, it is rarely used. According to which analysis or to whom? > Deprecating privacy lists Can you deprecate something without having an equal powerful alternative at hand? I don't think it's the right time to deprecate privacy lists. There is no equal alternative available, nor, as far as I can tell, has there been any effort attempting to solving the interop issues. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
