I don't think it needs to know about resources, because like you said montague.lit can forward it onto the interested parties.
For MUC the 'room' is in the chat marker so I don't think anything changes for this. Spencer On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Lance Stout <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 28, 2013, at 11:18 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My opinion at the moment is that the current toggle is the sort of > > protocol wart that it's possible to get caught up in, but really makes > > no practical difference to anyone beyond aesthetics > > I heartily concede that this is very probably the case, especially for > Carbons; moving on. > > > Carbons/Markers are local. > > Well, Carbons is local, sure. Markers I'm not sure about yet because > > <switches to Chat Markers discussion> > > the current proposal is still a bit hand wavy when dealing with multiple > servers. So consider [email protected]/orchard and > [email protected]/balcony, > and both have expressed interest in using chat markers. > > > Romeo sends Juliet a message, and Juliet updates her read information on > capulet.lit (which is allowed and useful even if Juliet is the only one > that supports the markers). > > > But capulet.lit needs to know if [email protected]/orchard supports chat > markers to send it an updated read marker from Juliet. It would need caps > for that. Or, does it even care about resources? Does capulet.lit instead > send a request to the bare [email protected] to update the marker, and > let montague.lit archive and forward it to the interested resources? My > initial feeling is that it should care about resources, because of MUC.
