[standards-jig] JEP-0045 Suggestions
alexey at sevcom.net
Fri Sep 13 18:54:50 UTC 2002
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> 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