[Standards] Labeling Roster Items

anders conbere aconbere at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 00:59:58 UTC 2008


On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
>  > Hello
>  >
>  > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:53:54PM -0700, anders conbere wrote:
>  >> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Justin Karneges
>  >> <justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com> wrote:
>  >>> On Sunday 30 March 2008 7:34 pm, anders conbere wrote:
>  >>>  > However in XMPP our roster grouping are still relegated to binning or
>  >>>  > boxing (an item in a group exists in one and only one group).
>  >>>
>  >>>  Actually, in XMPP a contact may be in multiple groups.  In fact, the grouping
>  >>>  is more like "tagging" than any sort of binning, since there is no group
>  >>>  hierarchy stored in the roster (a group cannot exist without a contact in it,
>  >>>  much like a "tag" can often not exist without at least one thing tagged).
>  >> Hmm so this problem is by and large in how Groups are implemented in the wild?
>  >>
>  >> That in and of itself might seem to be reason at least to create a new
>  >> semantic grouping. Right now I'm struggling to find an number of
>  >> clients that let me keep  users in multiple groups, or at least give
>  >> me ui to group in a tagging like behavior.
>  >
>  > Most clients show them in multiple groups, if they are already in the
>  > roster. However, many of them have just switch, in which group a contact
>  > is.
>
>  Right. If your client doesn't do that, use a better client or file a bug
>  report. :)

Yep, sounds like this is purely an implementation issue :)

~ Anders

>
>  Peter
>
>  --
>  Peter Saint-Andre
>  https://stpeter.im/
>
>



More information about the Standards mailing list