Justin Karneges wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 23:01:13 Kevin Smith wrote:On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045? I think this feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I would like to remove it from XEP-0045.Without checking, that was in the spec for converting the chat to muc case. I don't see the harm in leaving it there, but I think it'll come down to another argument about the impossibility of collisions on a guid.There are many places where a UUID may be appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. You're desiring an unique handle to the MUC service, and the MUC itself is really the authority for that.
Um, the whole point of a UUID is that it's universally unique, no? /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
