[standards-jig] NEW JEP: Multi-User Chat

Dave Smith 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 mailing list