[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving

Jacek Konieczny jajcus at bnet.pl
Wed Jun 9 08:31:36 UTC 2004


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:21:49PM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 3:06 am, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> >
> > 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.

When he initiates a new chat it is a new chat and a new thread. But if
it just responds to what I have written in the previous active client it
is just a continuation of the same chat. That is why I wrote "chat
part".

> > > 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.

Use of the same message types as in XMPP makes protocol simpler and more
intuitive. That is always good.

Greets,
	Jacek



More information about the Standards mailing list