[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.

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/20070512/0b5293e8/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list