[standards-jig] o/~ disco, disco MUC o/~
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).
Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Standards