On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, at 13:19, Georg Lukas wrote: > The complexity isn't added by this change (except for adding another > element to disco#info), it is there already. Clients don't have a way to > check for this feature right now, so they need to implement whatever > workaround the authors come up with. Therefore, we are just better > documenting the situation (Maybe somebody can even provide a > recommendation for how to handle this uncertainity, which would be a > good addition at this place). > … > Except that now the author is explicitly made aware of the situation, > instead of stumbling into a <not-implemented/> situation reported by a > small subset of their users.
Documenting seems like the thing to do here then; especially if whatever workarounds people are using right now could be a part of this documentation. > Maybe the right next step would be to get rid of the invitation flow > completely instead? I wouldn't mind this, I don't like all of MUCs complicated IRC-like features. Unfortunately, I suspect that we can't at this point. I'd be curious to know how the community and other council members feel about this idea. > You mean things like No, I mean this specific issue. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________