[Standards-JIG] Re: LAST CALL: JEP-0117 (Intermediate IM Protocol Suite)
sneakin at semanticgap.com
Tue May 17 04:19:56 UTC 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
| On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:59:34AM -0500, Nolan Eakins wrote:
|>I'm against (2) and (3). I'll leave the decision of (1) or (4) to you.
| I don't think that came out as you intended. The relevant considerations
| are to be discussed on this list and then the Council will try to make a
| decision that's consonant with the list consensus.
When you brought this up right when you were changing this JEP I finally
consented to going with what has been called option (1) in this thread.
Options (2) and (3) make no sense whatsoever IMO because they're at the
point where you may as well throw in all of MUC because it'll gradually
creep in since it'll be needed. For minimal MUC, (1) is a good place to
draw the line.
| Sure, that can be a deployment decision regarding room defaults. But if
| most clients don't support room configuration or destruction, then most
| deployments will choose not to allow persistent rooms. Not sure that's
| good or bad, but a widespread deficiency in client implementations does
| not strike me as a good reason for choosing that default.
Non-persistent rooms should be the default. I don't imagine many users
who create a new room just to have a 3+ person chat would even bother
with destroying the room. Call it lazy or ignorance on their part, but
that'll most likely be what they'll do.
- - Nolan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards