[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving
David Yitzchak Cohen
lists+jabber_standards at bigfatdave.com
Wed Jun 9 01:46:51 UTC 2004
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:21:49PM EDT, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 3:06 am, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> > > Currently, the above scenario would result in 3 separate
> > > chat interfaces (you with obviously 3 clients, and me with 3 different
> > > chat windows under one client), and 3 different <thread> values.
> > The <thread> values would be different only if one of clients used is
> > broken or the "moving" participant always initiates each chat part. This
> > is not true in most of my "moving" chats.
> If the "non-moving" participant initiates the chat, he would have to begin a
> new chat with a new resource, and you'd have a new thread.
Well, if you don't do the common practice of "latching onto" a resource
after the initial message, you _can_ pull off the disappearing resource
trick, rather than getting an error message back from the server when
you try to continue a chat with a guy whom you see is clearly online.
("Stupid program - don't send the message to where he ain't; send it to
his new resource!")
> > > Fine, but we should at least have a "type" attribute that would provide
> > > some guarantees:
> > > 1) if type=muc, all jids have the same bare jid
> > > 2) if type=chat, there are only two jids in the whole collection
> > Why not just use standard XMPP message types? "groupchat", "chat",
> > "message" and "headline". What more do we need?
> Should we differentiate a collection of "normal" messages vs a collection of
> "chat" messages? I suppose we could, but I was thinking 'chat' could mean
> any kind of two-party discussion. In that case, the types wouldn't exactly
> match that of xmpp.
It's interesting ... every time I turn around and look, the complexity
of the Jabber protocol suite roughly doubles. If we keep up this trend,
it's possible we'll outrun Moore's Law ... which will bring its own
problems, of course ;-)
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right?
Please visit this link:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards