[Standards] MUC actor
bcully at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 03:45:31 UTC 2011
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
> any, but it might upset some clients to see an <actor> with no 'jid'.
Why can't the JID be no more than the room JID, and rely on existing mechanisms to map that to a real JID. If you have access to see the real JID of a participant, then you should be able to see it for the actors, if you don't, then you shouldn't. I don't see what's special about the actor JID versus any other in a MUC context.
More information about the Standards