[Standards-JIG] MUC (JEP-45) privacy & control

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Mon Apr 17 12:47:17 UTC 2006


Ian wrote:
> > The following is only a personal opinion, I'm not expecting
> > it to result in changes to the JEP at this stage, although
> > I am very interested in other people's opinions (I'm sure
> > I'll learn something)

Trejkaz, wrote:
> Well, it's true... we could just remove anonymous and 
> semi-anonymous rooms. But if we did, we'd have a very
> hard time trying to convince many users of IRC to switch
> to Jabber, as their service would offer that feature
> while ours didn't.

Thanks for the reply. :-)

I understand that a lot of developers have used and are fond of IRC. But
do we need to care quite so much about IRC users that, in order to add
an IRC feature, whose benefits could arguably be achieved in a better
way, we complicate our protocol? Doesn't that go against the Jabber
philosophy of simple clients?

AFAIK the vast majority of people who chat use Web based chat rooms, not
IRC clients. In my experience, the people who use these services hate
the abuse that goes on more than anything else. Features like anonymous
and semi-anonymous rooms just make it easier for the abusers.

It is far too late to make any changes to JEP-0045 that aren't 100%
backward compatible. However, perhaps we could lower the bar for
potential implementors simply by adding a note to make it *clear* that
both server and client support for anonymous and semi-anonymous rooms is
optional. (IIUC nonanonymous rooms are optional too, but IMHO that is
less important to highlight.) Would that note have any impact on
existing implementations or on the rest of JEP-0045?

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list