[ticker-dev] Elvin presence specification draft 0.2

[Klaus Alexander Seistrup]

Matthew Phillips wrote:

> I's say either use one "bots" group or maybe several with a
> naming convention like "bots.dstc", "bots.public" etc.

That's a good idea.

> Several people have noted the "|" convention for formatting group
> sets.  The reason for this is that clients will often want to subscribe
> for presence info for a single group, and with this convention we
> can just use a subscription like:
> 
>   require(Presence-Info) && contains(Groups, "|dsto|")

You're right, I only thought about require() and regex() subscriptions, and
never considered the possibility you're mentioning.  I reckon I can accept
this as a valid argument for using leading and trailing group delimiters.

> 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...


  // Klaus

-- 
A man, just one -
also a fly, just one -
in the huge drawing room.