[Standards] JID matching in XEP-0045
waqas20 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 19:17:02 UTC 2010
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Florian Zeitz <florian.zeitz at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 20.09.2010 13:53, Florian Zeitz wrote:
>> I'll try to come up with a patch against xep-45 trying to catch all edge
>> cases. If only to see how feasible this would be.
> As promised I tried to change XEP-45 accordingly.
> Taking into account my lack of experience with editing XEPs and not
> being a native speaker this has the potentially to be horrible, but it's
> hopefully still a good start.
> The diff is attached.
> You can find the html and PDF version at:
> I'd still like to hear thought on whether you think this is a good idea
> (since only 2 people have responded and I talked them into it ;) ).
> Obviously I also welcome any comments/constructive criticism on the
> attached patch.
> Florian Zeitz
I'm +0.5 to allowing <node at host> to inherit affiliation of <host>.
However, changing affiliations from being based on bare JIDs to being
based on full JIDs seems pretty significant. What's the rationale? How
useful is this?
This requires some thinking, and perhaps testing to determine interop
issues. I'll also need to review our code to determine how significant
a change this would be in Prosody's MUC implementation.
This may also affect other XEPs (distributed MUC, etc). I haven't checked yet.
More information about the Standards