[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Daniel Noll daniel at noll.id.au
Sat May 12 05:15:02 UTC 2007

On Saturday 12 May 2007 00:36, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Yea exactly, MUC is effectively its own server on the network (even if
> it isnt physically), IMO it might be a good idea to have separate server
> compliance specs for the different types of server, i.e.
> XMPP Basic Server 2008
> XMPP Basic MUC Server 2008

+1 because it would be quite possible to run a MUC server with its own XMPP 
server support and without any user accounts at all, and thus all the 
requirements related to users would have no relevance to this software.

-------------- 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/20070512/0b5293e8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list