On 2/1/10 12:06 PM, Ben Schumacher wrote: > On 02/01/2010 03:27 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: >>> Missing IMs because you accidentally left yourself logged in on another >>> machine, or because Client X has different default priority settings >>> than Client Y is inconvenient, annoying and prone to error. >> >> This could be fixed by specifying that the default priority should be >> 0. Why kill a feature just because a few users don't use it? It could >> be just hidden from them and those who want to use it can still use >> it. I would not want to use a server that delivers my messages to all >> resources. >> > > That is the default priority. No priority defaults to 0. Unfortunately > the entire usage of priorities has become so muddled that some clients > (Gajim, for example) try to do clever things with priority. Nobody > suggesting necessarily killing it, but why not have a sane way to use > XMPP for IMs without it. The fact of the matter is that most people I > talk to much prefer the way GTalk works to the "standard" way which > requires people like me to SSH into our boxes at home to kill the client > we accidentally left running. http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0146.html > If people are using XMPP for IM then receiving their messages is always > preferable to not. Regardless, PSA's change here is a softening of the > language from a "SHOULD" that isn't honored by the most widely used XMPP > deployment and puts it into the hands of implementations and > administrators to make what they feel is the most appropriate choice for > their users. Yes, that seems most reasonable for now. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.