[Standards] XEP-0045: direct invitations

Michal 'vorner' Vaner vorner at ucw.cz
Thu Jul 19 22:04:17 UTC 2007


On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 03:55:53PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do something about it? 
> Maybe. One "solution" is to say that if you send a direct invitation,
> you get reduced functionality. Sorry.

OK. Maybe you are right defining a piece of protocol just for the sake
of completeness is not needed…

> Understand that the main driver here is Google Talk. You can't receive
> messages in Google Talk unless you add the sender of the incoming
> message to your roster first. That doesn't work with random chat rooms,
> with the result that Google Talk users can't join chatrooms on the
> Jabber network. That's a shame. Direct invitations would enable us to
> work around that.

I got that. I just don't like workarounds from the principle. But it is
just my opinion.

So just one last question - how does a client know, when to send direct
or usual presence? Sends both? Or user chooses? Or some heuristics?
(@gmail.com -> direct, otherwise usual?)

You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can make a fool of yourself anytime.

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070720/ad3f2d56/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list