[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving
justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Wed Jun 9 09:37:50 UTC 2004
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 1:31 am, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> 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
Sorry, I'm very confused by your statements. First you say that "the <thread>
values would be different only if [...] the 'moving' participant always
initiates each chat part." Then I say that even if the 'non-moving'
participant initiates a chat, there would still be a new thread. And then
you claim to agree with me. Is there an argument remaining, or are we done
> > 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.
When it makes sense to use them, then yes. However, this may not be such a
case. If the collection is of type "chat", does this mean that all content
of the collection is assumed to be message of type=chat?
I'll throw a wrench into this mess by suggesting that we might want to be able
to log non-message items in a collection, such as presence changes.
More information about the Standards