On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/26/11 12:51 PM, Alexander Holler wrote: >> Am 25.08.2011 16:37, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: >>> On 8/25/11 5:20 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Peter >>>> Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Irrespective of fully-anonymous rooms, a (not XEP-0045) extension to >>>> allow timed bans seems to me like it could be useful. I don't know >>>> what others think. >>> >>> Clearly I need to write that spec for ad-hoc commands in MUC... >> >> I could try to write an XEP for those timed affiliations, but I'm unsure >> if extending an existing namespace through another XEP is a way to go. > > My point about ad-hoc commands is that it would enable us to escape from > updating XEP-0045 with these feature requests related to things like > configuration and room management. See XEP-0050 and XEP-0133 for examples. > >> As already written, my prefered way to implement timed affiliations >> would be >> >> ---- >> <item nick='pistol' affiliation='outcast' until='2011-08-22T23:59:59Z'> >> ---- >> >> and the possible use of an attribute 'until' would be indicated through >> a feature 'muc#timed-affiliations' in service discovery. > > Again, I think ad-hoc commands is a cleaner way to move forward. > <snip/>
I'm not opposed to using adhocs for extended room commands, but at least for stuff like ban/kick etc. the method needs to be defined - at which point it seems to me that any benefit from being adhoc is lost. It's possible we'd get away with it for extended ban variations, but I'm not yet convinced. /K
