Please create a PR for this. My personal - not very strong - feeling is
that this should go into the MAM-XEP since the MUC-XEP should be agnostic
of MAM.
cheers
Daniel
2016-07-04 15:55 GMT+02:00 Holger Weiß :
> Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
> configuration setting
* Emmanuel Gil Peyrot [2016-07-05 08:24]:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Holger Weiß wrote:
> > Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
> > configuration setting that enables/disables MUC MAM (e.g.,
> > muc#roomconfig_mam)? That way, clients that don't want to p
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Holger Weiß wrote:
> Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
> configuration setting that enables/disables MUC MAM (e.g.,
> muc#roomconfig_mam)? That way, clients that don't want to present the
> full configuration form could offer a
On 4 Jul 2016, at 14:55, Holger Weiß wrote:
> Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
> configuration setting that enables/disables MUC MAM (e.g.,
> muc#roomconfig_mam)? That way, clients that don't want to present the
> full configuration form could offer a knob for that.
On 04.07.2016 15:55, Holger Weiß wrote:
> Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
> configuration setting that enables/disables MUC MAM (e.g.,
> muc#roomconfig_mam)? That way, clients that don't want to present the
> full configuration form could offer a knob for that.
>
> I
Would people be fine with defining a standard name for a room
configuration setting that enables/disables MUC MAM (e.g.,
muc#roomconfig_mam)? That way, clients that don't want to present the
full configuration form could offer a knob for that.
If nobody objects, I'd submit a PR against XEP-0045 (
