I agree to Florian, Goffi etc... XEP-0016 is complex, but powerful. I see no reason to deprecate it, just because there's a similar XEP (0191). In our company we've had an requirement to be invisible to certain roster groups. This is not solvable with other XEPs.
The other mentioned use case -blocking users, which are not subscribed to my presence- is perfectly valid, too. I don't care about Prosody, but why would one remove XEP-0016 entirely? It will break clients only. - Christian Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2015 um 10:07 Uhr Von: Goffi <go...@goffi.org> An: "XMPP Standards" <standards@xmpp.org> Betreff: Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists I'm strongly against deprecating XEP-0016: we are working a lot with groups, and neither XEP-0191 nor XEP-0186 allow to block/be (in)visible only for a group. I think a XEP should not be deprecated if its features are not superseeded by the new one(s). thanks Goffi Le mardi 29 septembre 2015, 15:02:02 Sam Whited a écrit : > 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. > > 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. > > Deprecating privacy lists will simplify the XMPP stack and remove one > more interop issue between clients which implement different > protocols, and I'd like to request that it be taken up and discussed > by the council. > > Best, > Sam > > > > [1]: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-December/029402.html[http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-December/029402.html] > [2]: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-September/030358.html[http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-September/030358.html]
