nwalp at pidgin.im
Wed May 23 14:33:11 EDT 2007
Sean Egan wrote:
> On 5/23/07, Nathan Walp <nwalp at pidgin.im> wrote:
>> I'm NOT OK with bastardizing the protocol the way Google has. If I were
>> Sean, I'd be at work screaming at the top of my lungs to fix their usage
>> of XMPP, rather than expending ANY energy discussing this here.
> I don't think that's fair. The XMPP spec is vague on the meanings of
> these states. Given the highly-specific nature of RFCs in general, and
> the XMPP RFCs in particular, I presume it's purposely vague, to allow
> clients and severs to do whatever makes most sense to them.
> In this case, "away" is defined simply as:
> "The entity or resource is temporarily away."
> That sounds, to me, 100% in sync with the Google clients' behavior of
> setting this state on computer inactivity.In fact, one of the options
> that's arisen in this thread is to have Pidgin match the Google Talk
> presence implementation for all XMPP accounts. If you think this
> behavior somehow violates the specification, let me know, and I'll see
> what I can do. Then I'll remove "Auto-away" from Pidgin, as that also
> allows for exactly the same, apparently bastardized, functionality.
OK, this is what I get for responding to mailing lists first thing in
the morning. I apologize. Based on my reading of this thread, I was
under the (mistaken) impression that it was being used as a purely idle
thing, and not as auto-away.
I guess, to sum up my views, I want us to do the same thing as the
majority of the other XMPP clients do. I haven't used the Google client
at all, I should learn to experiment before I go getting up on any
Please replace my prior argument with "don't make Google Talk any
different from other XMPP after initial account creation, please."
> I hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding. If you have any
> specific gripes, let me know.
Crystal clear. I'm an idiot. I think maybe I'm getting stressed out
with this whole moving-to-a-new-job-in-a-new-state thing.
More information about the Devel