[standards-jig] NEW JEP: Multi-User Chat
dizzyd at jabber.org
Sat Sep 14 16:37:14 UTC 2002
On Saturday, Sep 14, 2002, at 08:21 America/Denver, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> One good reason is that to setup the conversation to negotiate things
> like nicks is complicated. And just doing it based off of
> type='error' is a really bad way of doing it.
Why is using an error code a bad way to deal with an error? :)
> Another reason is that overloading the presence tag to do more and
> more is also a bad hack.
Overloading? I personally think that sending presence to a JID to
indicate that you are "joining" the room makes a lot of sense and maps
nicely to a presence-based communications system like Jabber. Why have
a whole seperate IQ series to "join" a room? What does it mean to join
a room without having any presence in that room?
> It would be nicer to have a cleanly designed protocol to do everything
> all contained within one namespace.
I think the point of this work is to maintain as much simplicity (and
backwards compatbility) as possible (i.e. GC 1.0) while providing a
clean and modular extension for doing advanced multi-user chat
> Yes, the initial groupchat protocol was nice and simple. So leverage
> that and use the simple parts in the new protocol, but don't juse hack
> up the existing one. DW's groupchat protocol was looking to try and
> bring full groupchat capability to Jabber, which is something we
> greatly need.
The bigger question is, how does this new proposal _not_ bring "full
groupchat capability" to Jabber?
More information about the Standards