The numerical approach to status codes is ugly:
<presence
from='[email protected]/thirdwitch'
to='[email protected]/pda'>
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'>
<item affiliation='member' role='participant'/>
<status code='110'/>
</x>
</presence>
I think it could be easily extended as we did for core XMPP stanza errors:
<presence
from='[email protected]/thirdwitch'
to='[email protected]/pda'>
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'>
<item affiliation='member' role='participant'/>
<status code='110'>
<self-presence/>
<status>
</x>
</presence>
The question is: should the new child elements be qualified by a
namespace other than muc#user? I think that would be cleaner and less
likely to cause problems, because XMPP implementations ignore data from
unknown namespaces. So I propose this:
<presence
from='[email protected]/thirdwitch'
to='[email protected]/pda'>
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'>
<item affiliation='member' role='participant'/>
<status code='110'>
<self-presence xmlns='urn:xmpp:muc-status:0'/>
<status>
</x>
</presence>
If that approach seems sensible, I will define appropriate child
elements for the existing status codes. Naturally, the <status/> element
could be extended with other child elements, too. I'll copy appropriate
text about application-specfic child elements from RFC 3920.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
