On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.html > > > > Hmm, 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. A members-only room is an authorized MUC room - the list of members becomes the list of authorized entities. But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a member and send him an invitation message. But for this, you have to be able to add members. This needs a deep poke into the MUC and I didn't post yet other stuff I promised. > > /psa -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
