[Standards] Strictness of disco types
daniel.henninger at jivesoftware.com
Thu Mar 6 20:08:53 UTC 2008
So there are two types listed. text and irc. Are these meant to be strict type choices, or suggestions? Is it theoretically bad to use something other than those two choices?
Regardless of that question ... I was thinking a type="gateway" might be a good idea. Gateway MUC services are typically different in use and concept because they are tied to your actual gateway account. If you try to use the MUC service of a gateway service and are not affiliated with the gateway/logged into the legacy service, you are unable to make use of the MUC service. It might be nice to have a good way of distinguishing this to the client. IE a client could handle those services differently.
I guess the client -could- look for a combination of a feature of jabber:iq:gateway and the feature named with the muc uri instead, but I kind of like the idea of categorizing it differently. I'd like to hear opinions on this front though.
I'm not 100% sure why text and irc are different though. Just 'cause? Nice and easily identifiable? (which kind of lends to my thought on wanting a gateway one)
More information about the Standards