On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Florian Zeitz <[email protected]> wrote: > [This time from the correct account...] > > Hi, > as discussed in jdev@ today XEP-0045 is slightly underspecified and/or > different from what people expect in terms of matching JIDs. > > 1. Roles: (not discussed in jdev@) > "Roles are granted, revoked, and maintained based on the occupant's room > nickname or full JID" > One can join a room with the same nickname from multiple different > resources. What happens if different full JIDs have different roles, but > the same nick is unspecified (AFAICT). I'd expect this to be strictly > nickname based...
Makes sense to me at the moment. > 2. Affiliations: (discussed in jdev@) > Affiliations are supposed to be handled by bare JID, however: > a) Outcasts are an exception from this rule and use the same matching as > privacy lists. > b) It's not clear what happens if e.g. a domain is in the list of > members. Does that mean only the server itself may join the groupchat, > or are all accounts on the server supposed to be able to join the > groupchat too. > It seems people (including me) mostly expect the JID matching rules > specified for privacy list to apply to all forms of affiliation. In fact > it seems to be implemented this way in ejabberd. > My personal use-case is that I'm hosting a MUC for university purposes > on my own server that should be members only, but all users of the > university's server should be members. I think server-JID means all JIDs on the server are the given affiliation. I don't see any other way making sense. /K
