[Standards] MUC actor

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Apr 6 13:48:52 UTC 2011


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller
<linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm not following what you're suggesting :)

It seems you're saying it shouldn't be the real JID, with which I
agree, but the rest I'm hazy on.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list