[Standards] XEP-0045 MUC should mention component

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Jul 16 19:23:37 UTC 2014


On 16 July 2014 19:33, Graham King <graham at gkgk.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi,
>
> XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) doesn't say that it should be implemented
> as a Component (XEP-0114). I think it should mention that.
>
>
I don't think there's such a requirement. Certainly most servers do not
implement it as a component in the sense of XEP-0114.


> I remember getting quite confused when I first worked on implementing
> MUCs because I was new to XMPP. All the examples use a sub-domain
> (conference), but it doesn't say that you have to. If you try doing
> MUCs on the same domain as the main server (i.e. without component
> protocol), the disco gets confusing.
>
>
It does get confusing, yes, but it's possible to mix the two. I vaguely
recall Prosody can do this. Most servers, however, do require it's a
distinct domain. Of course, you could easily enough have a server that only
spoke MUC, and not IM at all, too.


> Is there a reason that's not mentioned (other than it being obvious to
> everyone else)? If not, could I send in a patch to get the ball rolling?
>

Saying it's typically implemented as a distinct service domain would
probably make sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20140716/46b5cf02/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list