On 6 October 2010 13:41, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > We seem to have a contradiction in XEP-0045 about when to send > status code 100. From 13.4, we get: >
> Any thoughts? > Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most sense. I think it's given that when you join a room the admins will be able to see your JID, there's really no such thing as "fully-anonymous", and I've never seen that functionality used. Based on that we'd be including 100 with practically every MUC join for little reason. Also I believe this is how Gajim and Prosody both interpret 100 too, I haven't investigated other implementations. Matthew
