[Standards] JID Matching (was: Re: XEP-136 and XEP-59 implementation comments)
stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat Apr 5 03:57:14 UTC 2008
This applies to MUC, privacy lists, and message archiving, so I'm
changing the subject...
Alexander Tsvyashchenko wrote:
> Quoting Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>:
>>>> I think it is counter-intuitive.
>>>> Logic would hint that domain.com is exact match and @domain.com is a
>>>> wild match.
>>>> Similar with user at domain.com is exact match and user at domain.com/ is
Yes, that seems most logical to me. Unfortunately, it may be too late
for the most logical approach.
>>> Yes, probably, but that would break current behavior for sure, while the
>>> original approach seems to be less dangerous in this respect ... If
>>> backward compatibility is not a problem, though, I personally would be
>>> happy with either way of doing it.
>> Well, hmm, breaking backward-compatibility is not good, eh?
> Yes, but don't forget that my original proposal was the opposite variant
> (which, hopefully, should not cause serious problems with backward
> compatibility, but as Tomasz and you pointed out may be
> counter-intuitive for someone)
> I suppose that for XEP-136 backward compatibility is not a problem -
> it's MUC where most likely it is.
> ... and we still have another option: attribute 'exactMatch', which is
> certainly backward-compatible ...
The more I think about it, the more I realize that adding a boolean
'exactMatch' attribute may be the best approach.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards