[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-45 MUC - "from" attribute in discussionhistory

Gaston Dombiak dombiak_gaston at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 2 12:44:10 UTC 2004


Thanks for the reply. You are right, I thought it was referring to the
"from" attribute of the message.

BTW, may be this is too much to ask but....could you (or somebody) help me
out with the other posts that I made regarding MUC? I'm implementing MUC
server side and I'd like to be 100% compliant with the spec.


  -- Gato

"Ian Paterson" <ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FOENKLDIMCIMONDFDEMKKEGJCFAA.ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk...
> Gato wrote:
> > Last part of section 6.3.12 says:
> > "...The 'from' attribute SHOULD be the JID of the original sender in
> > non-anonymous rooms, but MUST NOT be in semi-anonymous rooms (the 'from'
> > attribute SHOULD be set to the room JID in semi-anonymous rooms)."
> >
> > My first question is which JID should be sent in non-anonymous rooms?
> > JID or Full JID? I assume that it's bare JIDs.
> No, it must be the full JID (see example 27).
> > why making this difference between semi and non-anonymous
> > rooms? I think that we could always send room JIDs
> > as if those messages were regular groupchat messages
> > thus simplifying the task on the clients.
> Perhaps you are confusing the two 'from' attributes?
> The paragraph you quoted is talking about the 'from' attribute of the
> 'jabber:x:delay' namespace element (again see see example 27). The 'from'
> attribute of the <message/> element is always a room JID (in all room
> for both normal and history messages). So the task of the clients is
> - Ian

More information about the Standards mailing list