[Standards] Status code 100 in MUC
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Apr 6 02:58:19 UTC 2011
Old thread alert!
On 10/6/10 8:27 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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.
I agree with this interpretation and will update XEP-0045 accordingly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards