Hello,
I think the problem of a muc derived use is about all the stuffs that
many people don't care of, or don't understand. When you go to a muc,
you must choose a muc server explicitely (even though it is the server
where you are already hosted) and you are proposed to chose a nickname
for instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being
anonymous, etc.
In a basic multi-user discussion, people just want to speak with
several people. They don't want to be proposed to have another nickname
than the one they already have, they don't care about being anonymous
(because anyway in such case, they discuss about known people, even
probably people in their roster) and they don't want to have to find a
server which propose such a muc service (because they don't understand
what means muc, and what is a server).
For instance I may just be discussing with a friend, and I see another
common friend connecting. So I say "eh let's invite Jo to speak with
us", I click the button "invite someone in this discussion", and now he
simply can speak with us.
So of course, you could do this with a client implementation using muc:
it would check on your local server whether a muc service exists, create
a private muc, don't ask to hide your jid or to choose a nickname, don't
ask a room title, make it private, etc. But I think this is complicated
compared to a system of multi-recipient. You simply send a message with
several recipients. And a conversation <thread> element (cf. 4.5 of
rfc3921) is welcome to follow this specific discussion (enabling then to
distinguish several discussions opened with the same user for
instance).
So it would give something like:
Code:
--------------------
<message
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/balcony'
from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Hello Romeo, hello Juliet. How are you?</body>
<thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
</message>
--------------------
I would say that if you don't specify a thread, then this would be only
a message sent to several people, but independently (they won't know all
the recipients).
What do you think of this?
Jehan
--
Jehan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911
View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=302
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
