On Nov 10, 2010, at 05:30 , Dave Cridland wrote: > If a client sends a chatroom a message, and that message has an id, should > outbound messages from the chatroom to the occupants use the same id? > > Doing so has obvious implications on id uniqueness, but apparently most > implementations preserve the id, and the result is that at least one client > implementation is relying on this behaviour. > > Personally, I consider the two stanzas - occupant to MUC, and MUC to > occupants - to be distinct, just having the same (or similar, at least) > payloads - and therefore have different ids (indeed, different per occupant). > Everyone else seems to consider this a silly idea.
I'm going to assume by "message" we mean <message type='groupchat'/>, intended for broadcast to the other room occupants. I'm of the opinion that ids need only be preserved to their intended endpoints; in this case, that would be from the occupant to the room. If the room decides to "respond" to the <message/> with an error, it SHOULD use the same id in the offending message. But once accepted for redistribution, I think it's up to the MUC implementation if the original <message/> ids are preserved. And in general, I've found very few cases where tracking ids on <message/>s was worthwhile, and just about none with regards to MUC. - m&m
