[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Daniel Noll daniel at noll.id.au
Sat May 12 05:14:41 UTC 2007


On Saturday 12 May 2007 02:25, JD Conley wrote:
> Historically MUC has been a component. More recently, it is just another
> feature that bundle with their core server. Of course, it CAN be another
> component and is likely implemented that way. However, that's completely
> beside the point. In an XMPP IM environment people have grown accustomed
> to MUC. Whether you implement it in your server or provide a third party
> component that implements it, you must have it to be compliant!

That's basically what I was saying, where as long as your server does nothing 
to prevent a third party writing a component, it's compliant.

Just because users want MUC is no reason to require it on every server.  Can't 
users use S2S to get to a MUC server somewhere else?

Daniel
-------------- 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/20070512/e3a0e935/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list