[Standards] MUC actor

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Apr 11 19:31:10 UTC 2011


On 4/11/11 1:08 PM, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> 
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 13:04 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> On 4/6/11 8:11 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>>> On 6 April 2011 14:54, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Matthew A. Miller 
>>>> <linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:48 , Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller 
>>>>>> <linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's what I'm suggesting;  Have "jid" be the full occupant
>>>>> JID, not the real bare JID.  No need for a "nick" attribute,
>>>>> IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> Right. Just make the actor always the full room JID, never the
>>>> real JID, sounds good to me.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1. It's still a potentially breaking change, but probably less
>>> so as it doesn't change the schema :)
>> 
>> But in that case why not make it 'nick' as in the other parts of
>> the spec? Typically 'jid' in XEP-0045 means "real JID" and 'nick'
>> means "roomnick". I don't think we use 'jid' to mean
>> room at service/nick anywhere else in MUC.
>> 
>> Peter
> 
> The reasoning here is using "jid" is (or appears to be) much less of
> a breaking change than "nick".  Maybe if this were a pre-draft spec,
> we'd be more comfortable moving to "nick"; but it's not, so we're not
> (-:

I understand the reasoning, I just don't agree with it. ;-)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20110411/e6307c68/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list