[Standards] Threaded chats
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
> But I'm happy to do #2.
Certainly objection from me.
More information about the Standards