Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote: > Hello > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:53:54PM -0700, anders conbere wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Justin Karneges >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sunday 30 March 2008 7:34 pm, anders conbere wrote: >>> > However in XMPP our roster grouping are still relegated to binning or >>> > boxing (an item in a group exists in one and only one group). >>> >>> Actually, in XMPP a contact may be in multiple groups. In fact, the >>> grouping >>> is more like "tagging" than any sort of binning, since there is no group >>> hierarchy stored in the roster (a group cannot exist without a contact in >>> it, >>> much like a "tag" can often not exist without at least one thing tagged). >> Hmm so this problem is by and large in how Groups are implemented in the >> wild? >> >> That in and of itself might seem to be reason at least to create a new >> semantic grouping. Right now I'm struggling to find an number of >> clients that let me keep users in multiple groups, or at least give >> me ui to group in a tagging like behavior. > > Most clients show them in multiple groups, if they are already in the > roster. However, many of them have just switch, in which group a contact > is.
Right. If your client doesn't do that, use a better client or file a bug report. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
