On 11.07.2018 07:52, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 11. Juli 2018 04:02:23 CEST Kim Alvefur wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> I have implemented tombstones for destroyed MUC rooms. My reading of the >> sacred texts did not give me enlightenment as how to inform someone >> who's attempting to enter the remains of such a place. I've so far opted >> to return an <presence type=unavailable> with the same <destroyed> child >> that was in the inital announcement of the rooms destruction. >> >> Of the clients I’ve tested so far, only Gajim seems to understand this. >> Swift says something unspecific about failure to enter the room, while >> Pidgin and poezio say nothing. >> >> So basically, this is the reply one gets to a MUC join: >> >> ``` xml >> <presence type="unavailable" id="" to="me@localhost/r" >> from="a@gc.localhost/n"> <x xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user";> >> <item affiliation="none" role="none"/> >> <destroy>You see only a crater.</destroy> >> </x> >> </presence> >> >> ``` >> >> Does this make sense? > > Is there a reason to not use a presence type="error"? I’d expect clients to > handle those already.
Yep, Smack would handle an 'error'. I also lean towards 'error'. Any reason why you choose 'unavailable'? IIRC 'error' presences are usually send as a result of another presence, whereas 'unavailable' presences are usually send independently of other prior presences. Hence 'error' seems more suited in this case. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
