Old thread alert! On 10/6/10 8:27 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > 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.
I agree with this interpretation and will update XEP-0045 accordingly. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
