Hello On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:53:54PM -0700, anders conbere wrote: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Justin Karneges > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 30 March 2008 7:34 pm, anders conbere wrote: > > > However in XMPP our roster grouping are still relegated to binning or > > > boxing (an item in a group exists in one and only one group). > > > > Actually, in XMPP a contact may be in multiple groups. In fact, the > > grouping > > is more like "tagging" than any sort of binning, since there is no group > > hierarchy stored in the roster (a group cannot exist without a contact in > > it, > > much like a "tag" can often not exist without at least one thing tagged). > > Hmm so this problem is by and large in how Groups are implemented in the wild? > > That in and of itself might seem to be reason at least to create a new > semantic grouping. Right now I'm struggling to find an number of > clients that let me keep users in multiple groups, or at least give > me ui to group in a tagging like behavior.
Most clients show them in multiple groups, if they are already in the roster. However, many of them have just switch, in which group a contact is. Gajim (for example) has UI allowing you to put contact in many groups. -- I've already told you more than I know. Michal 'vorner' Vaner
pgpzPFoRh2jtG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
