[Standards] MUC 2

Simon Tennant simon at buddycloud.com
Fri Feb 20 14:43:37 UTC 2015


On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

>
> On 12 Feb 2015 14:00, "Christian Schudt" <christian.schudt at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dave, maybe could you (or somebody else) elaborate on the "shortcomings"
> and the "different demands of things like buddycloud" you have discussed
> for those who didn't attend the summit.
> >
> > Also what's so bad about multiple parties chatting via a third party
> chat service (your 2nd use case)?
> >
>
> In the case of a private conversation between three people, it feels wrung
> to introduce a fourth.
>
Agreed. They can join but don't get access to the "mentioned in confidence"
history before they joined.

Google Hangouts is very sensible about the two-people -> now-a-group
upgrade handling.

> Secondly, I think that we do want to maintain basic protocol compatibility
> with old MUC, so clients joining via presence we probably want to support,
> and clients sending messages would be unchanged.
>
Presumably this could be achieved through a translat-o-matic (
http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Summer_of_Code_2015#MUC_to_Channels_translat-o-matic
)

My vision is that legacy MUC clients can still work. But more modern BC
clients can handle the case of liking a comment (
http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buddycloud-channels.html#item-rating),
comment threading, post revocation etc.

S.
-- 
Simon Tennant | CEO Buddycloud <http://buddycloud.com> | +49 17 8545 0880
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150220/5fc7baf4/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list