On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/14/13 1:13 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Mathieu Pasquet <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I was starting to implement carbons in poezio when I came across some >>>> kind of design issue that I haven’t been able to work out. >>>> >>>> As I understand it (and in the use case explained in the introduction), >>>> Carbons provide a way to minimize the nuisance of changing devices, by >>>> providing all the messages with 'chat' type to all the carbon-enabled >>>> clients. >>>> >>>> The requirements also state that “All clients that turn on the new >>>> protocol MUST be able to see all inbound chat-type messages”. >>>> >>>> However, in the case of private MUC messages (XEP-0045, 7.5), the >>>> messages are also of type 'chat', causing them to be forwarded as normal >>>> chat messages. But the other resources are not necessarily present on >>>> that MUC, so they will receive the messages just fine, as with any >>>> direct conversation with a fulljid, but they won’t be able to reply, >>>> because I believe most MUC implementations will check the fulljid and >>>> reply with an error. >>>> >>>> I can’t think of a straightforward solution to this issue, as the server >>>> doesn’t know about MUC, neither does the other resource. >>>> >>>> On the sender part, it might be solved by including a <private/> with >>>> each message sent through such chats, but on the receiving part, AFAIK >>>> there is no way to distinguish those. >>>> >>>> I think the XEP should cover that case, because it is rather common to >>>> have private conversations with people in a groupchat, and letting >>>> clients guess how they should handle the message is very error-prone. >>> >>> Could you disco any unknown JIDs to see if they're users or MUCs? >>> >>> /K >> >> Yeah, that’s what I went with (I had forgotten about it at the moment of >> writing that email). >> >> I think the XEP should indicate such a behavior, as a client developer >> might forget about this case. > > Sounds like a positive addition. It would be good to advance this spec > to Draft sometime. Do you have any other feedback? > >> Or even better, maybe the server could perform that disco, although I >> get that making changes to already-deployed implementations might be >> painful. > > How would it work for the server to perform service discovery on your > behalf? (BTW, you don't need to send the disco request if you're using > entity capabilities / XEP-0115.)
No? /K
