[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-06-06

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Tue Jun 12 18:34:26 UTC 2018

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, at 13:19, Georg Lukas wrote:
> The complexity isn't added by this change (except for adding another
> element to disco#info), it is there already. Clients don't have a way to
> check for this feature right now, so they need to implement whatever
> workaround the authors come up with. Therefore, we are just better
> documenting the situation (Maybe somebody can even provide a
> recommendation for how to handle this uncertainity, which would be a
> good addition at this place).
>> Except that now the author is explicitly made aware of the situation,
> instead of stumbling into a <not-implemented/> situation reported by a
> small subset of their users.

Documenting seems like the thing to do here then; especially if whatever workarounds people are using right now could be a part of this documentation.

> Maybe the right next step would be to get rid of the invitation flow
> completely instead?

I wouldn't mind this, I don't like all of MUCs complicated IRC-like features. Unfortunately, I suspect  that we can't at this point. I'd be curious to know how the community and other council members feel about this idea.

> You mean things like

No, I mean this specific issue.


More information about the Standards mailing list