Hi, > Is it allowable that a server sends _more_ events (that are not in the list > specified in XEP-0045)?
Yes as Point 5 of the event list clearly means "everything else" as denoted by the "etc.", accounting for the extensible nature of XMPP. Not sure what there is to discuss. What do you think would be excluded under Point 5? Or are you asking if you can inject new undefined Events *before* Point 5? To that question i would definitely have the opinion, No you should not do that, and its not allowed and unexpected. You gave no example what could be that important that it needs to be inserted earlier than point 5 in the event order. If you are talking about Prosodys room self presence which communicates an avatar then its clearly not necessary to send this presence before the subject. Not sure if Prosody sends the avatar presence before the subject, but it was never and will never be necessary to satisfy the use case of communicating the avatar. So if you are asking if you should do the same, i would say No, please send after subject as allowed by the XEP. Or is there any other concrete example you are asking for? Regards Philipp On Fri, Oct 18, 2024, at 16:45, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > Hello XMPP aficionados! > > For a client joining a MUC, XEP-0045 defines a very strict order of events > (section 7.1). Is it allowable that a server sends _more_ events (that are > not in the list specified in XEP-0045)? > > I've observed that in the wild, at least one implementation sends a presence > stanza 'from the room itself' (with CAPS), preceding the events defined in > section 7.1. > > There is an argument to be made that the XEP defines the order of the events, > but leaves room for there to be 'more' events. One could argue that this is > in line with the extensible nature of XMPP. > > On the other hand, I think that it's fair to say that this is stretching > things to an extent where it is not unreasonable for implementations to not > account for this (thus introducing potential interop issues). > > I would like for the XEP to be more explicit, and either explicitly allow or > disallow this behavior. I have not quite made my mind up which way I lean, to > be honest. I'm interested in learning about the views on this from the > community. > > For context, this has been previously discussed in the XSF Discussion MUC. > This is a link to the public message archive of that discussion. > https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2024-09-07#2024-09-07-78b71f7983a88d14 > > Kind regards, > > Guus > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
