XEP-0045: Stanzas when loosing membership in member-only room
Hello! Section 9.4 of XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat defines XMPP interaction when a member of a room gets their membership removed. In the last few lines of the section, the section describes how, in a members-only room, the affected user is to be removed from the room. Why does example 128 "Service Removes Non-Member" contain two stanzas (their difference only being a 'actor' element)? See https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-128 Kind regards, Guus
On 7/10/24 5:08 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hello!
Section 9.4 of XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat defines XMPP interaction when a member of a room gets their membership removed. In the last few lines of the section, the section describes how, in a members-only room, the affected user is to be removed from the room.
Why does example 128 "Service Removes Non-Member" contain two stanzas (their difference only being a 'actor' element)? See https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-128 <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-128>
I think the we should have only once presence stanza in that example. IMHO it could include the actor element and the text above the example could say that the presence stanza MAY include the actor element. (In a members-only room, the actor element might be useful - "membership has its privileges" and that privilege is being taken away.) Peter
Thanks Peter, A change to the specifications as per your suggestion has been prepared here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1362 Kind regards, Guus On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:44 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
On 7/10/24 5:08 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hello!
Section 9.4 of XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat defines XMPP interaction when a member of a room gets their membership removed. In the last few lines of the section, the section describes how, in a members-only room, the affected user is to be removed from the room.
Why does example 128 "Service Removes Non-Member" contain two stanzas (their difference only being a 'actor' element)? See https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-128 <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-128>
I think the we should have only once presence stanza in that example. IMHO it could include the actor element and the text above the example could say that the presence stanza MAY include the actor element. (In a members-only room, the actor element might be useful - "membership has its privileges" and that privilege is being taken away.)
Peter
participants (2)
-
Guus der Kinderen -
Peter Saint-Andre