On 1/22/10 6:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Jan 22 09:13:34 2010, Peter Mount wrote: >> Ok one from Section 6 >> >> In 6.2 for room discovery it currently says (Just after Listing 3): >> >> The service SHOULD return a full list of the rooms it hosts. >> >> Should that actually read something like: >> >> The service SHOULD return a full list of the public rooms it hosts. >> >> My thinking here is that hidden rooms should remain hidden, but as it >> stands 6.2 implies that they should be exposed by discovery? > > And which rooms are exposed anyway?
The public rooms and not the hidden rooms. > 1) Some rooms you can't join, but are made public so that you can ask to > join them. Correct, those are public rooms as controlled by the muc#roomconfig_publicroom option. > 2) Some rooms you can join, but you need to know about them, since > they're not listed. Correct, those are hidden rooms as controlled by the muc#roomconfig_publicroom option. > 3) Some rooms you can only see if you're allowed to join them. That's nice if you want to check the member list, security clearance, or other information before returning disco#items results, but it is out of scope for XEP-0045. > The muc#roomconfig_publicroom option possibly always lists, possibly the > inverse never lists, and possibly controls listing absolutely. See above. > But if it's the latter, then how does one achieve option 3 for a set of > rooms? If you want to do Option #3 in your implementation, that's great, but it is a special product feature that you can tout in comparison to your competitors. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
