Following the MUC theme, we had a little discussion today in jabber@. Something I hadn't really noticed before is that the <actor> element in MUC (the one that tells you who performed an action like a kick or a ban) specifies that you must use the bare JID of the actor.
This seems a really strange thing to do, especially in an anonymous room - not only do you not know who the person was (if you can't see real JIDs), it unnecessarily exposes the admin's private JID to someone who was worth kicking from a room :) Granted, the room is free to not give any actor, but some people want to see who did what, in some rooms it provides accountability. I think being able to use a nickname for the actor is a decent enough middle ground to be reasonable. It turns out it is not that hard to do protocol-wise either. The <actor> element currently has a 'jid' attribute, and we can add a 'nick' attribute as well. The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested any, but it might upset some clients to see an <actor> with no 'jid'. Thoughts? Matthew
