[ticker-dev] Elvin presence specification draft 0.2

[Phillips, Matthew]

Klaus (and in reply to Martin also):

> > The reason to choose "|" over ";" or "," is that it looks better
> > when used this way ie "|dsto|elvin-sse|" looks nicer than
> > ";dsto;elvin-sse;", IMHO.
> 
> I agree with you inasmuch as I never liked the ';' construct.  On the
> other hand I, as a user, should never have to actually see 
> those strings
> as I expect my software to handle the details for me.  But yes, '|' do
> look nicer than ';'.  We could also, as Martin suggests, use a pair of
> symbols <{([])}> to enclose each and every group subscribed to.  I'm
> not sure which idea I like the best...

You're right about this being a client-level thing and not really important.
I did consider something like "{dsto}{dstc}{bobco}" for groups, but it's
really just wasting bytes in "syntactic sugar" for something that very few
people are ever going to want to see anyway.

Michael:
> * Is anoyone else running anything that implements this?

As far as I know the answer is no - the 0.2 spec has only been out for 4
days now, and I have been waiting for comments before taking the leap. It
won't take long to change Sticker 2 over though, it's mainly a matter of
renaming some fields.  Adding GUI support for multiple groups might take a
little bit longer though. (I also want to see if I can support the older
Sticker 1 presence protocol, since quite a few people are using it here)

> * How do I discover what 'groups' exist?  With the protocol
>   as specified, this does not seem possible (except via quench).

Good question.  Word of mouth or ticker is one way.
"require(Presence-Info)" is another way, albeit one that could potentially
flood your client.  We may have to put in a simple server running on one of
the gateways that compiles a group list from Presence-Info notifications and
can spit it out to interested clients.

Matthew.