[Standards] MUC actor

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Apr 6 13:45:56 UTC 2011


On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:21 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 4/5/11 9:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully <bcully at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> The scenario is that in an anonymous room you want to be able to show
>> messages like "bjc was kicked from the room by MattJ", which are
>> pretty standard in e.g. IRC. Currently there is no way to do this
>> within the spec (as far as I'm aware) - you can have my bare JID or
>> nothing.
> 
> Seems fine for it to be the nick, not the real JID.
> 

What if the actor[jid] is the full room jid ("darkcave at chat.shakespeare.lit/firstwitch")?  It seems like a more fitting change to me: if the jid has a resource then you have the in-room nickname, else it's real jid.

I guess I don't see the need for the actor to include the real jid also.  You've already got the real jids via the "join" presence, if the room is non-anonymous.  Just my thoughts.


- m&m

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2238 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20110406/53a73c1f/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list