[standards-jig] o/~ disco, disco MUC o/~

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Nov 11 21:18:53 UTC 2002

David Sutton wrote:

>> I'd understand arguments for either one of these. Perhaps it would be best
>> to leave this up to the implementation, but then of course we don't have
>> consistency (which might be nice if I want to consistently find out how
>> many people are in the room, for example).

> I spent some time this afternoon thinking about this. I came up with the
> following idea. Why not use the '%' system for browsing lists. So, for
> example, if I wanted to get the member list from jdev at conf.j.o, i'd send
> my disco#items request to member%jdev at conf.j.o

> This would allow the flexibility to request specific list information.  It
> also gets around the limited reporting ability (only having jid & name) as
> you already know the role or affiliation you are requesting the list
> from. E.g. if I request the member list, I know all these users have
> affiliation 'member'

On second thought, it's probably better to use stats for this, not disco.

Alexey Shchepin wrote:

> Such flexibility can be requested by other services in the future, but current
> Disco protocol allows only one 'items' or 'info' reply per JID.  I suggest to
> add e.g. 'id' attribute to <items/> and <query/> elements to allow every JID
> have it's own disco hierarchy.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why do we need a "disco hierarchy" or
the ability to send multiple 'items' or 'info' replies from the same JID?

> I not very like idea with using '%' because this overloading of JID, and this
> can work only with services (because they receive all to their domains).

I agree.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Standards mailing list