XEP-0045 now allows multiple full JIDs for the same bare JID to "share" a single nick in the room. For example, both [email protected]/balcony and [email protected]/chamber could join [email protected] as [email protected]/JuliC.
This introduces a possible point of confusion. When Juliet leaves the room from her "balcony" resource, she will still be in the room with her "chamber" resource. However, a client that receives unavailable presence from [email protected]/JuliC might assume that JuliC is no longer in the room. In a non-anonymous room we have a workaround, because the service sends this: <presence from='[email protected]/JuliC' to='[email protected]/pda' type='unavailable'> <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> <item affiliation='member' jid='[email protected]/balcony' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ role='none'/> </x> </presence> However, in a semi-anonymous room the service does not include the real full JID of the entity that has departed. Therefore, I wonder if we need to define a new status code that enables the service to indicate that JuliC still has presence in the room. <presence from='[email protected]/JuliC' to='[email protected]/pda' type='unavailable'> <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> <item affiliation='member' role='none'/> <status code='120'/> </x> </presence> (Yes, I know that we want to get rid of the status codes in favor of XML elements, and I'll work on that soon...) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
