-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mostly just thinking aloud here... ;-)
I've been thinking more about the multi-resource case, i.e., allowing multiple full JIDs to have in-room sessions associated with the same roomnick. For the moment I'm focused on presence. If a user has multiple devices associated with a roomnick, I'd like to share the device capabilities (XEP-0115 data) with all the room occupants. I *think* this works OK if the MUC room simply passes the presence data through to the room... <presence from='[email protected]/user1'> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps' hash='sha-1' node='http://code.google.com/p/exodus' ver='QgayPKawpkPSDYmwT/WM94uAlu0='/> </presence> <presence from='[email protected]/user1'> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps' hash='sha-1' node='http://example.org/someclient' ver='JdyUr+T6oM2/7QiI5K0BriU0BdY='/> </presence> The room occupants might get confused because it might seem that the user's single endpoint has changed capabilities. However, even in an anonymous room the occupants could track capabilities if the caps 'node' values are different. Life is easier in a non-anonymous room because then the full JID appears: <presence from='[email protected]/user1'> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps' hash='sha-1' node='http://code.google.com/p/exodus' ver='QgayPKawpkPSDYmwT/WM94uAlu0='/> <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> <item affiliation='none' jid='[email protected]/foo' role='participant'/> </x> </presence> <presence from='[email protected]/user1'> <c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps' hash='sha-1' node='http://example.org/someclient' ver='JdyUr+T6oM2/7QiI5K0BriU0BdY='/> <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> <item affiliation='none' jid='[email protected]/bar' role='participant'/> </x> </presence> Here, occupants' clients can tell that the first presence comes from the "foo" resource whereas the second presence comes from the "bar" resource. Receiving clients would need to perform some kind of client-side composition if they want to offer an interface to the differing capabilities of the sender's devices, but that's really no different from the non-MUC case. OK, I've convinced myself that there's no problem here, but feel free to disagree with me (heck, I often disagree with myself!). ;-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlDSJU4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxeJQCcCuHun8UTDWVghiSJl3TXwFns 2mUAnjkuR/LQiVVq4o3w6lAU5oQWkCma =POxs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
