[standards-jig] Version 0.6 of JEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Sep 25 15:03:33 UTC 2002

> The idea behind a heirarchy would be to bring a level of functionality to
> the conference server that I have not found in any text conferencing to
> date. But we do see this kind of heirarchy in both Domain names and
> similarly in the usenet.
> The purpose goes beyond grouping similar topics into a single folder, but
> grouping them into a scalable top down structure.
> Examples of this kind of use.  I am a member of a gaming group called
> I have conference.66oc.org as my public conference server, but I share
> server with many other clan to use, I also use this server with a
> developement group I work with and then my friends outside of this.  I
> have a bunch of different rooms named "66OC general", "66OC AvP2", "66OC
> 1942", "Jabber Development", and then a few rooms based on other topics.
> heirarchy was implemented though, I could have
> 66OC at conference.66oc.org/whatever and with me as the administrator of that
> room and all lower level rooms.  All lower level rooms would be organized
> AvP2.66OC at conference..... and 1942.66OC at conference..... and then
> teamdiscussions.66oc at conference.org.
> Another example would be using the conference server in a corporate
> environment.  You would have different organizations within a corporation.
> For example, IT Operations who all report to the CIO would be under the
> folder of itops at conference.company.com.  then you may have
> development.itops at conference.company.com,
> support.itops at conference.company.com and
> engineering.itops at conference.company.com.  From there you can add in
> desktop.support.itops at conference.company.com and
> helpdesk.support.itops at conference.company.com and so on.  This would allow
> for a heirarchy to administer by too.  There may be a better way to do
> this is just what we have come up with so far.  It could also allow for
> rooms to be linked together if you wanted to build more of a community
> structure.
> If somebody has a better idea for how this could be implemented, please
> us know, we just think there would be a demand for this sort of heirarchy.
> As companies begin to embrace IM more and more, they will probably start
> seeing an advantage to having a heirarchy system in place that would allow
> for teams to gather in to to communicate with.  And would allow for people
> to move up and down the heirarchy to communicate about things on a
> or more defined level.  The heirarchy doesnt have to be implemented at
> but if the functionality were in the conference server, it would bring
> another level of appeal to jabber that doesnt exist for other IM services.
> Jared Cluff (Vapor)

I know about the hierarchy method, but it is not a good idea to put the
whole hierarchy in the jid of the room as you dont need that for it to work
if implemented correctly, its an ugly way of doing it IMHO. Also I still
dont think its intuitive for users without previous knowledge of what it is
or prior experience of usenet (if they even make the mental comparison).
But anyway go ahead and write up a JEP on this extending upon JEP0045 to
support this extra stuff, also I think you will encounter problems when
trying to do clean navigation around the heirarchy.


More information about the Standards mailing list