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

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Sep 26 08:24:56 UTC 2002

> During yesterday evening we talked about the jep in both jabber at c.j.o
> and jdev at c.j.o . The talks showed us that we actually agree with it,
> sort of.

There is still the 256 byte limit so that does limit the levels of heirarchy
you can support, also you cant compare IRC and your heirarchy's, IRC rooms
are all at one level and most of the time will not ever come near the 256
byte limit, but your heirarchy's on the other hand could well go way past
that limit if there isnt a limit on the amount of levels it can go to, and a
length limit on the names of those rooms.

You still have not answered with a solution to this SERIOUS problem until
you do your system cannot proceed in its current form.

> compare these:
> #channel%jabber.eu.openprojects.net at irc.jabber.org/username
> oubliette.dungeon.darkcastle at conference.jabber.org/username
> I'd say a discussion about hierarchies or not is moot. The standard
> naming convention already allows it.

Well the standard naming convention allows virtually anything up to a point,
so yes and no, it certainly doesnt allow hierarchies explictly.

> Besides, to an old server the dot-rooms would be put next to the other
> rooms in the row.

Rooms in a row, where? in the browse?

> JEP-0045 could be said to be about how to talk to different chat
> systems, instead of just a room.

?? I dont understand what you are trying to get at here.

> Therefore we would all address the conference system even though we
> think we're sending it to a room. The separation of rooms from
> conference is simply not necessary.

Huh? Not necessary? What are you going on about?

> So the block for us all was the word "room"...


More information about the Standards mailing list