Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500 XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.htmlHmm, good idea, this simple direct invitation protocol, it makes sense to send invitation to the people I invite.
Well that's what we had in the old days ("jabber:x:conference"), but then we made something fancier in XEP-0045. Fancier isn't always better.
Just a sidenote, couldn't "venue" be replaced with something more specific and well known in the XMPP community (e.g. "conference"). It might also come first in the example, as it's the only important (and REQUIRED) element.
Sure, <conference> is fine with me.
Also, more about authorization and relation to other XEPs would be nice. Passwords are IMO not a good *default* authorization technique for MUC rooms.
I agree. But that's something we should define in XEP-0045 -- or even deprecate password-only rooms in favor of members-only rooms.
It seems MUC authorization was removed from [xep 0235]. Isn't now the time to find a better place for it?
Maybe. I'm not sure how useful MUC authorization is. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
