jdev - 2022-09-27

Should I always include <x xmlns='muc#user'/> in preence updates as well? (participant changes to busy, etc.)

Does that not make it a join stanza?

hmm. What do affiliation change look like? They also have this <x xmlns='muc#user'/>

They don't look like join stanza ✏

A join stanza is for when it's a new participant in the room? You got me confused ✏

Ah, <x> without #user, nm

No I mean, what should the room broadcast

As a MUC I'll accept presence updates even without <x> as long as the user is joined, or at least that's how I understand it, but I'll broadcast them back with the <{muc#user}x/> right?

eeeem

what sets a disco info from a MUC Service like conference.example.org appart from a muc like muc@conference.example.org?

or can i say, something without a localpart can never be a muc?

xmpp:cheogram.com is a bot, and also a gateway

Unless muc is somehow special but I don't know that it is

not sure what you are trying to tell me

a gateway is not a muc

and has an identity type gateway

I'm just saying that because something is a bot doesn't mean it's not a gateway, I assume somemuc.domain.org could be a muc too, idk

yeah, but we need to see the difference

a muc is joinable, a service not

thats the question, how to know

lovetox, IIRC there have been some MUCs on bare localpartless JIDs, but I believe that protocols are easier to implement if the kind of JID something operates on is clearly defined

Is a service actually needed. In any case the choice to consider jids without a localpart not to be rooms seems rather arbitrary

that is, I would like to see MUCs on on bare JIDs with a localpart

so the conclusion is, from a disco info you can not know if a jid is a muc component or a room?

great!

There could/should be something, maybe, in disco. Just please don't restrict the jid for no reason

Somebody(tm) should do something about it

pep .. im asking is there something in disco, and your answer is "maybe there is something in disco"

No, maybe there should be, I said :p

nah fuck people who make rooms on jids without localpart

I wouldn't use the same words, but I am not sure what the advantage of having MUCs on localpartless JIDs is, besides being able to show off your corner case protocol knowledge ;) ✏

Also show off that you can break gajim, probably :P

What's the point in restricting this? If you're gonna disco anyway why not indeed make it discoverable?

pep. i hope you are aware how standards work

even if you make it discoverable now, for eternity there will be server who dont announce it

pep., I think it makes it developing easier and less error prone if the jid kind that a certain service is provided on is limited to a sensible set ✏

further i dont want to maintain code and assumptions which i can not test easily somewhere

"for eternity there will be server who dont announce it" < so what, should we stop making any change because it's not going to be deployed anyway? Please.

I'm not even sure I would use this, fwiw. I just don't want to be restricted because somebody didn't want to add a disco feature because "fuck people who make rooms on jids without localpart"

Hi. What does it mean when I request "Last Activity" for an offline user and I get second="0"?

maybe a misbehaving server?