[Standards] Status code 100 in MUC

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 14:27:01 UTC 2010


On 6 October 2010 13:41, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  We seem to have a contradiction in XEP-0045 about when to send
> status code 100. From 13.4, we get:
>

> Any thoughts?
>

Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most
sense. I think it's given that when you join a room the admins will be
able to see your JID, there's really no such thing as
"fully-anonymous", and I've never seen that functionality used. Based
on that we'd be including 100 with practically every MUC join for
little reason.

Also I believe this is how Gajim and Prosody both interpret 100 too, I
haven't investigated other implementations.

Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list