XSF Discussion - 2017-03-17

good morning

moin

Morning all.

o/

Hm. Even quoting of messages (with attribution) is a science. Should one use "$nickname wrote:\n> $message" (i18n-nightmare on multi-language MUCs), "$nickname:\n> $message" (i18n-neutral but does not properly indicate attribution), or maybe "$nickname (HH:MM):\n> $message" (the HH:MM is a hint that this is a quote and not a mention, but exposes local time)

Ge0rG (11:55): > Hm. Even quoting of messages [...]

doesn't look too bad, does it?

Is this something that should be part of IM Usability Guidelines or should every client implement their own common sense understanding of what's the problem and the solution?

Of course there is also "$nickname> $message" but it looks strange on multi-line messages.

Format-flowed in IM? Use <thread/> and an in-reply-to SHIM to indicate the provenence?

dwd: that works in theory if you stay in the same MUC. Sometimes you also want to cross-quote ;) And then there is the Usability challenge of properly displaying <thread> relations

Ge0rG, Does this *need* a standard?

dwd: this is part of my question

Ge0rG, Yeah. I think I don't care (enough). At least not yet.

dwd: it's lower on my needs-a-standard priority list than having the same color scheme for MUC participant nicknames.

...over clients

References? :)

-1 why?

Kev, References does everything.

Everything to do with referencing other messages, at least :)

And referencing other things.

We reference pubsub nodes.

And all I wanted to do is simple string manipulations.

Is there any way to let your contacts know why you are offline? A kind of 'extended-away' status, but explicitly while offline? ("I'm travelling until <somedate> and won't be back online before")

Just set the reason same as any other statutus.

On sending unavailable.

is there any client that actually displays that?

I think most will, but probably only if they receive it live.

So probably not that useful, sorry.

it could be stored in PEP :>

or in the vCard

Some servers did store this, maybe jabberd14/2

and it was answered in response to probes

that would be the expected behavior

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0318.html requires that :)

kev: well, the other client (or its server) could send a probe and the server that has the "I am travelling" last presence could return it. now i dont think many servers return the last unavailable presence anymore these days

returning the last unavailable presence, with a delay element, would also allow to implement a kind of "last seen"

hmm, not sure if I like the name *delay* element in this context

there’s even an example of delayed presence in 203: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0203.html (Example 2)