> I would say - both useful and practical: I don't think I agree: I'm still convinced resources should be treated as opaque strings. Historically, clients filled in hostnames, or worse, ask the user to provide his resource name, but nothing prevents servers to auto-assign resource names (GTalk does this up to a point, but many users don't even provide resource names and let the server choose one)
The fact that you want to look for a conversation while talking to someone when she was at work should not be done by searching for a specific resource (who says that I call my work resource "Work", and not "Acme", or "Werk", or ...), but by using other meta-information (e.g. geoloc, client version, ...). I don't think a resource is to be considered part of a conversation, just a low-level routing detail. Full JIDs in conversations are necessary for storing MUCs though. cheers, Remko
