On 7/16/13 3:23 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > 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?
I must be missing some context, then -- if you've received caps from another entity, there's no need to send the disco request. -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
