Dave Cridland wrote: > What you're saying here is that room invitations would benefit Google > users by coming from the actual sender, rather than relayed via the > room. This seems sensible, because blocking lists might otherwise > intervene as well for other users. > >> A direct invitation would probably look like as follows (modified >> example 46 and 47 from XEP-0045):
What does Google currently use for its (presumably direct) invites, and would it perhaps be good to adopt that if it's close enough to what was described here? > This seems much more logical to me than the status-quo. You'd quite > possibly need to tell the room you're inviting someone, though. Perhaps include a token in the invite? Give the token to the room, and then the invitee would include that token when joining? This would have a couple of benefits: It would be possible to invite someone to a password-protected room without revealing the password, and also to invite someone to a members-only room without making them a member. If the token idea is sound, I'm not sure that including the password in the invite makes sense; a "bookmark" or "contact" sending protocol might make more sense for that. (Where you could send a bookmark for the room to a contact, and they could then be given the option of adding it to their bookmarks or joining the room immediately, or both) -Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
