RE: number of tuples

The only disadvantage I see is, again, that it might be used as a
non-interoperable substitute for actual status. I don't think this is an
immensely worrisome drawback, but I think it might be worth mentioning in
the spec (maybe via an admonition that <note> should not be used in this
fashion).

Anyway, since there hasn't been any serious objection (aside, perhaps, from
Mr. Houri's concern that this is tied into partial notification, a very
knotty problem that we definitely are not trying to tackle here), I don't
see any real problem allowing zero or more tuples in a <presence> document.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:01 PM
> To: 'Peterson, Jon'; 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: number of tuples
> 
> 
> I seem to remember raising the issue of the <note> element as 
> a child of
> <presence> a while back and suggesting that since it didn't seem to be
> required as part of 2778/2779 that we should remove it, but the
> consensus seemed to be that there was little cost to 
> including it in the
> specification and that it was useful to have. I hope that cost doesn't
> increase by drawing us down roads we don't want to travel.
> 
> Having said that, I don't see the harm in making the change. 
> I think it
> might be quite reasonable that I delete my last communication device
> (tuple) and that my presence gets published before I add the new
> replacement. Is there a disadvantage to a null presence document?
> 
> Adrian.
> 
> On 27 November 2002 08:59, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> > I do have one small reservation about this.
> > 
> > Clearly, being "out to lunch" suggests that you are not available.
> > Considering that an automaton, for whatever reason, might be
> attempting to
> > ascertain your presence, it would better to provide a more easily
> digestible
> > state - one could argue that "out to lunch" is reducible to 
> CLOSED in
> most
> > circumstances, and that therefore it should appear in a 
> <tuple>. While
> > currently <note> can appear as a child of either <presence> or
> <tuple>, I
> > don't think the possibility of using <note> in <presence> 
> was intended
> to
> > provide an alternative to <status>, a kind of out-of-band and
> > non-interoperable means of expressing status info. I always assumed
> <note>
> > was comparable to an 'away message' in existing IM systems - but in
> PIDF
> > that would presumably accompany an away <status> in a <tuple>.
> > 
> > Are there other motivating examples in which a <note> would 
> appear as
> a
> > child of <presence> in which it does not effectively rephrase a
> <status>,
> > and in which there would be no need for any <tuple>s?
> > 
> > Jon Peterson
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > 
> > > PIDF currently specifies that a presence document has to 
> have ONE or
> 
> > > more tuples [emphasis added]. I requested a change so that this
> could be 
> > > ZERO or more tuples. Why? Because its reasonable to have presence
> state 
> > > which contains just a note:
> > > 
> > > <presence entity="im:[email protected]">
> > >    <note>Out to Lunch</note>
> > > </presence>
> > > 
> > > Does anyone see any problems with this?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jonathan R.
> 
> 



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]