[Standards] Should we move Nicks out of MIX-CORE?
steve.kille at isode.com
Mon Jun 4 06:53:25 UTC 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Gultsch
> Sent: 03 June 2018 20:11
> To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Should we move Nicks out of MIX-CORE?
> 2018-06-03 18:22 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com>:
> > My sense is that it is handy to have Nicks associated with channel participants,
> to give a more compact display. Perhaps this reflects the UIs I'm used to. It
> feels a pretty basic capability to me.
> My issue with nicks in non-anonymous group chats (and MIX core is now going
> to be non-anonymous by default) is that you loose the single source of truth on
> what to name that participant.
I'm not sure this is true. Including the JID is mandatory in MIX-CORE
> If I have you in my contact list and I have given you a custom name I have
> probably done that for a reason and in 1:1 chats with that person I will always
> see that custom name; But how should this be handled in group chats then?
> Should it display the nix? Should it display the roster name?
This can be a client choice. The client could show JID, or MIX provided Nick, or a user-assigned Nick for the participant. MIX is not mandating what gets shown.
> In any case; We don’t necessarily need to have a discussion on whether channel
> nicks are a good idea or not; Instead I’d rather make the argument that MIX
> promotes itself as being an extensible and flexible solution; so if it is technically
> possible to move nicks into it's own XEP it should be done.
> > However, I could move it out into a new MIX-NICK. What do people think?
> Yes let’s put it into a separate XEP
It is quite separable, and I can see some real upsides to a new MIX-NICK XEP. I am not opposed to a split.
However, I take Tedd's point about excess splitting. Kev made the same point while I was typing.
Let's see what others think.
More information about the Standards