Are you sure it's good enough for final? Pavel
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:52:13 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Cridland wrote: > > > ... and Keith suggestion works the other way around - the client > > *is* a participant, but makes everyone else invisible to it. > > There is also a room configuration option to not send presence for > various roles and affiliations. > > > It'd be interesting to see if it's worth offering control of a > > range of traffic, or whether we should just implement Keith's > > suggestion more or less as-is. > > > > One thing aimed at Keith in particular, though - I'd much rather > > not add things to MUC at this point. We can certainly tidy existing > > practise, and we can of course always extend: > > > > <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc'> > > <nopresence xmlns='urn:xmpp:tmp:nopresence'/> > > </x> > > +1 to not changing XEP-0045 -- I'd prefer to push it to Final soon, > not tinker with it forever. > > Heck, I wonder if certain features in MUC might be better defined in > separate specifications (e.g., all the room history handling and the > "request a unique room name" feature). > > /psa > -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
