[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

> > > 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.


More information about the Standards mailing list