[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: MUC Auto-Join

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Fri Jun 1 20:57:54 UTC 2007

On 1 Jun 2007, at 21:32, Chris Mullins wrote:
> There are two solutions I like a bit more, both of which are more  
> work:
> 1 - A "Startup" section in private storage
> 2 - Adding metadata into the items on a roster

There's a third option, which is to keep with the solution we have  
(0048), just updating it to the new pubsub-based system when  

I've never been quite sure why we desire to get rid of 0048 in favour  
of putting mucs in the roster, because they're not really chat  
entities, and have very different semantics. Now, I know many users  
would like to be able to do things like minimise to roster (and I  
support that too), but that's a client-side thing, not because the  
mucs are really stored in the roster.

So I guess the questions I have are:
1) What do we gain from putting mucs in a roster (in protocol) which  
we don't already have?
2) What are the problems with 0048 (iq:private notwithstanding)?


Kevin Smith
Psi XMPP client project leader - http://psi-im.org

More information about the Standards mailing list