On Mon Oct 27 17:48:11 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 27 17:36:49 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> > Dave Cridland wrote:
>> >> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> >>>> Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as
normal/chat. But
>> >>> should
>> >>>> they be?
>> >>> Define "currently"; I made a fix to this text in the last
revision of
>> >>> rfc3921bis:
>> >> Ah, cool, however, this really affects 8.3.1.1, or 8.2.2.
>> >
>> > Author oversight. Will fix.
>>
>> Never mind, because 8.2.2 says:
>>
>> For a message stanza, the server SHOULD treat the stanza as if
it were
>> addressed to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as described in the next section (but
without
>> modifying the value of the 'to' attribute).
>
> Yes - either 8.2.2 would need fixing, or else "the next section"
it
> points to when other resources are available, which is 8.3.1.1,
would
> need fixing, because it says:
>
> For a message stanza of type "chat", "error", "groupchat", or
> "normal", the
> server SHOULD deliver the stanza to the highest-priority
available
> resource.
>
> 8.3.2.1, the section you've changed already, only affects the
case where
> no resources for the account are available.
Aha, correct. Too many subsections...
http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/changelog/XMPP/?cs=2444
That change certainly reflects what I thought ought to happen. Does
anyone disagree?
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
