On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Florian Zeitz <florian.ze...@gmx.de> wrote: > I disagree. The text does not explicitly talk about the JID. Removing > 'example.com' is equivalent to removing "his or her own ownership" for > 'm...@example.com'. However, regardless of the current text: Do you agree > it makes sense for 'm...@example.com' not to be able to remove > 'example.com' if that is the only JID in the owners list?
I agree with that. >> As I said before, I'm not against the change (I can certainly see how >> it can be useful). I'd just like implementation behavior in all such >> cases to be explicitly specified, and text which depends on current >> behavior to be updated. My current preference for the ban list is to >> keep bare JIDs only though. >> > I'm still not convinced the current behavior of ban/outcast lists is > "bare JIDs only". Even in your implementation it can also contain domain > parts. While personally I can't see a use-case either, I don't think > matching by full JID is harmful. Also do you think other lists should be > able to contain full JIDs? >From the same section you copied the rules from: "Note: The ban list is always based on a user's bare JID." - http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#modifyban Also, 'outcast' is an affiliation, and "Affiliations are granted, revoked, and maintained based on the user's bare JID." - http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#affil -- Waqas Hussain
