[standards-jig] JEP-0045 Suggestions

Alexey Shchepin alexey at sevcom.net
Fri Sep 13 18:54:50 UTC 2002


Hello, Paul!

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:50:55 -0400, you said:

[...]

 PC> So, how does the client know that the component can provide the newer
 PC> protocol?  Well, the current version of the JEP does not specify how the
 PC> room subject is sent to the client. I would suggest that the room subject
 PC> packet be formalized to allow client developers to know how to handle the
 PC> subject. In addition, this packet could be used to return the version of
 PC> multi-user chat component to the user.


 PC>     eg.  <message type='groupchat' to='crone3 at shakespeare/pda'
 PC> from='coven at macbeth/firstwitch'> <mcversion>2</mcversion> <subject>Thrice
 PC> the Cat has mew'd</subject> <body>/me has set the subject to: Thrice the
 PC> Cat has mew'd</body> </message>

Hmm, client receive this after receiving presences of groupchat users and
history messages.  So it must redraw roster and maybe add interface elements to
support this more powerfull protocol, or don't draw this window until receive
this subject message (which can not appear, if subject not set before!).  I
think that better to send acknowledge right after client send presence with
mcversion='2' attribute.  This can be, e.g.

<presence from='coven at macbeth' to='coven at macbeth/thirdwitch' mcversion='2'/>

This conflicts with GC 1.0 protocol, but, of course, this must be send only if
client say mcversion='2'.

 PC> Lastly, I would like to see attributes added to the <presence/> packets
 PC> for the participants in the room. These attributes should indicate whether
 PC> the participant is a "moderator" or "admin" or "channel operator" for the
 PC> room. With this information, the client developers could have an indicator
 PC> that shows which participants in the room are capable of administering the
 PC> room.


 PC>     eg.  <presence from='coven at macbeth/secondwitch'
 PC> to='crone3 at shakespeare/pda' role='admin'/>

I like this variant, but is it fit in presence DTD?  Maybe use <x> element?

PS: I'm subscribe to this mailing list yesterday, are you discuss why not use
conference v2 (1.4?) protocol?

PPS: Sorry for my english.



More information about the Standards mailing list