[Standards] Suggestion for XEP-0045 : permit alias for the MUC address

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Sun Sep 25 09:39:23 UTC 2011

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Alexander Holler <holler at ahsoftware.de> wrote:
> Am 24.09.2011 23:51, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
>>> And handling room-aliases on the server side would have many pitfalls
>>> (e.g.the delay elements in the history). I'm not sure where else
>>> room-JIDs
>>> are used (besides in 'from'), that would require checking the whole XEP
>>> for
>>> appearances of room-JIDs (which currently isn't that easy) ;)
>> Kev is correct. MUC aliasing can work fine without any protocol or
>> client changes. A server doesn't need to forbid letting a client enter
>> a room in two ways. It would work fine. And I can't think of any
>> pitfalls regarding the delay element.
> The pitfall is that you can't stamp the delayed stanza when the delaying
> actually occurs, which means you have to do that somehow else. If you do,
> you will have to change that afterwards (when sending out). Stuff like this
> is what I call pitfalls.

I don't see why aliasing would affect the way delay elements are
inserted into room history. Please explain.


More information about the Standards mailing list