Ooops, managed to send my reply only to Kev. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > All of these involve changing what is currently specified, which isn't > what I'm suggesting - but I'm happy with a note saying "It is known > that some existing implementations require you to join the room" along > with the note saying that you don't need to.
I could support this if: 1) It described how to recover from this - which error would be given - and: 2) If implementations do actually give a useful error. My reading of XEP-0045 is that it ought to be <not-allowed/>, but I've a feeling that existing implementations give <forbidden/> instead, which clashes which "You are not an owner". I'm fully in support of the notion that actions not requiring a particular role should not need to be invoked only by an occupant (ie, you can configure and destroy rooms without joining them), I'm just hesitant given the history and existing deployment that this isn't a de-facto change to the specification.
