On 1/24/12 2:22 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> Snipping areas of agreement... >> >> On 1/24/12 2:14 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>>>> " not the nick (and thus implicitly the full JID) as with roles." - >>>>> isn't right, it's the nick, not the user's full JID, that defines >>>>> roles (the user may have multiple full JIDs with the same nick) - so I >>>>> think the parenthesised bit should go. >>>> >>>> But a nick is associated with a full JID. The point of the parenthical >>>> remark is to remind the reader that a role is *not* associated with a >>>> bare JID. (Thus "implicitly".) >>> >>> A nick *isn't* associated with a single full JID, it's associated with >>> a set of full JIDs - all those sharing the nick in the room. It's not >>> associated with a bare JID, either, as there may be multiple nicks >>> with same bare JID in the room. >> >> I thought we agreed to define that multi-JID support in a separate spec? > > We did, I just think having that parenthesised text "(and thus > implicitly the full JID)" confuses things, given that (whichever spec > it's documented in) MUC sharing is increasingly well deployed. But > this is minor, I don't think it's worth spending more time on.
Y'know, you're right. I've removed that parenthetical remark. See other message about the status code 210 issue... /psa
