[Standards] Status code 100 in MUC

Florent Le Coz louiz at louiz.org
Thu Oct 7 09:07:13 UTC 2010


  On 06/10/10 16:27, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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.
That's also how I did understand that. If it's how it is meant, I think 
this should be clarified in the first paragraph quoted by Kevin Smith.

Florent




More information about the Standards mailing list