[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-45 MUC - Language of discussion and fieldsstandardization

Gaston Dombiak dombiak_gaston at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 1 14:10:51 UTC 2004


Thanks for your clarification. My confusion was generated due to the fact
the section 13.4.3 has the field 'muc#roominfo_lang' as a standard field so
I assumed that when a room returns Extended Disco Info results (Example 7)
the field 'muc#roominfo_lang' MUST be returned. At the same time section
13.4.2 does not include that field so I assumed that an implementation is
not required to include the field 'muc#roominfo_lang' in the room
configuration form. Therefore, the returned field in Example 7 will be
always empty.


  -- Gato

"Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote in message
news:stpeter-5F6529.21255128092004 at sea.gmane.org...
> In article <ciidr2$5o9$1 at sea.gmane.org>,
>  "Gaston Dombiak" <dombiak_gaston at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > According to the field standardization the muc#roominfo FORM_TYPE should
> > include the field 'muc#roominfo_lang' which means 'Natural Language for
> > Discussions'. The problem is that muc#owner FORM_TYPE no longer defines
> > field. So the question is which form is incorrect?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >   -- Gato
> Section 9 of the JEP clearly states:
> ******
> Note that the configuration options shown below address all of the
> features and room types listed in the requirements section of this JEP,
> but that the exact configuration options and form layout shall be
> determined by the implementation or specific deployment. Also, these are
> examples only and are not intended to define the only allowed or
> required configuration options for rooms. A given implementation or
> deployment MAY choose to provide many additional configuration options
> (profanity filters, setting the default language for a room, message
> logging, etc.), which is why the use of the jabber:x:data protocol is
> valuable here.
> ******
> So naturally you can define your own configuration options if you want,
> or you can send them directly to the Jabber Registrar (c'est moi) for
> inclusion in that FORM_TYPE. We can also include them in the JEP if
> people think that's valuable (which it may be for things that are also
> included in the muc#roominfo FORM_TYPE -- and probably it would be good
> for us to explicitly map some muc#owner fields to muc#roominfo fields).
> /psa

More information about the Standards mailing list