[Standards] Threaded chats

Robin Redeker elmex at x-paste.de
Mon Feb 12 19:04:06 UTC 2007

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ian Paterson wrote:
> >Robin Redeker wrote:
> >>On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:55:02PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>But I guess it's too late now to change such things :-/
> >>  
> >
> >I don't think it's too late. Perhaps it just needs clarifying in XEP-0045?
> Which of the following do people want to change or clarify?
> 2. Clarify that message with subject but no body from the room is the 
> room or discussion topic, whereas message with subject and body from an 
> occupant is just another message (don't treat it as subject change).

Makes sense to me. Carification is never wrong IMO.

> I see no compelling reason for #1 (and no, protocol beautification is 
> not a compelling reason). If you wanted a beautiful MUC protocol, you 
> should have been around in 2002 (and MUC was never going to be beautiful 
> anyway, since it needed to be backwards-compatible with groupchat 1.0).

Heh, thats sad. But I understand that backward compatibility is maybe
more important.

> But I'm happy to do #2.

Certainly objection from me.


More information about the Standards mailing list