[Standards] request for reviews: XEP-0045 v1.25rc5

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Sep 27 18:52:40 UTC 2011


On 9/27/11 7:38 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>>
>>> I note that this feature has no disco feature defined.
>>
>> MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
>> decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
>>
>>> Given that
>>> no-one seems to have deployed this yet, we need a way to discover
>>> support.
>>
>> Do we want or need to define fine-grained disco features for XEP-0045?
>> And if so, why limit the new features to just this one?
>>
> 
> Many clients enable/disable/hide UI elements based on what is
> allowed/supported. The argument for having these particular features
> discoverable and not all others is that most other non-discoverable
> features are available in pretty much all server implementations.
> These features however are not present on existing servers. Clients
> should therefore only be showing UI elements when the features are
> known to be available. Doing otherwise is going to annoy users when it
> fails after they've put in the effort of filling in a form and
> submitting it, with no previous indication that it wasn't supported.

But then we're making a connection between "MUC features for which we
need to define service discovery features" and the current state of the
art in MUC implementations. I think that's not a good idea because how
do we know exactly which features are currently supported? If we're
going to define service discovery features, then I think we need to be
consistent about it.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/





More information about the Standards mailing list