On Thu Mar 19 10:29:29 2009, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Moreover, I don't think your client could - with the facilities
in XEP-0258
> - make the 1:1 -> MUC transition without human intervention, and,
more
> probably, human knowledge about clearances.
Or, probably, the 258-enabled MUC service could provide you with a
room based upon additional logic may be able to create a room
appropriately, if given additional context by the client?
Probably - but it means the client needing to say "I want to do a 1:1
-> MUC transition", which is more complex.
Then again, it may well be that we should consider making the 1:1 ->
MUC transition more explicit in the protocol anyway, since much of
the current work mildly alarms me (like the history upload).
If the server knew the intent was a 1:1 -> MUC room, it could do
helpful things like choose a suitable service for the room, and
adjust permissions and labels automatically on invitation. (For
instance, you'd generally want it to be "invitation only" - ie,
invitations cause affiliation changes).
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
