[Standards] A MIX Tape of suggestions.

Ralph Meijer ralphm at ik.nu
Mon May 23 12:09:24 UTC 2016

On 23-05-16 13:28, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 2) Creation
> There's no way to create a room. Given the complexities of room locking
> in '45, I'd like to have an explicit create, and I have a reasonably
> strong preference (not absolute) to having this directed to the service
> rather than a non-existent channel. ("Channel Create Thyself" does not
> appeal).

I like the guideline “explicit is better than implicit” [1], so fully 
agreed here.

> What about:
> <iq to='mix.cridland.im <http://mix.cridland.im>' type='set'>
>    <create channel='some-room-here at mix.cridland.im
> <mailto:some-room-here at mix.cridland.im>' xmlns='urn:xmpp:mix:0'>
>      <optional-configuration-form/>
>    </create>
> </iq>
> I'd like the channel attribute to be optional, and the result to be a
> create element with all the optional bits filled in. (ie, include the
> channel name and form).
> The channel address being optional allows for a straightforward use-case
> for creating an ad-hoc multiparty conversation; an absent configuration
> form should be treated by the service as "make up some settings suited
> to an ad-hoc multiparty conversation".

I assume that the server will send back the address of ad-hoc rooms in 
the response to this request (much like pubsub node creation), right?

Also, I wonder if the attribute should indeed have the whole JID here, 
or just the localpart. Also, can a server change the localpart before 
creating the room?


More information about the Standards mailing list