On 6/9/10 2:21 PM, "Alejandro R. Sedeño" wrote: > On 06/09/2010 02:16 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> 2010/6/9 "Alejandro R. Sedeño"<[email protected]>: >>> A client I work on, BarnOwl [1], has been, perhaps incorrectly, using >>> the former wording to allow for a<subject/> element along with a >>> <body/> element to indicate a subject for the particular message, >>> without changing the topic of MUC. This is used to emulate a feature >>> that every IM since Zephyr [2] is lacking, which allows for multiple >>> threaded conversations to exist in a single forum [3]. >>> >>> I'm interested in getting feedback on this usage and perhaps getting it >>> standardized. >> >> Can you not use<thread>?: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-06#section-5.2.5 > > No, thread is not quite right. > > "The value of the <thread/> element is not human-readable and MUST be > treated as opaque by entities; no semantic meaning can be derived from > it, and only exact comparisons can be made against it. The value of the > <thread/> element MUST be a universally unique identifier (UUID) as > described in [UUID]." > > We're looking for threading on topics like 'xmpp', 'cooking', 'physics', > etc.
Right. I think you want to use both thread and subject. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
