On Fri Oct 15 18:11:55 2010, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Friday 15 October 2010 00:54:30 Dave Cridland wrote:
> I'd be inclined to stick with this pattern, too - add domain-level
> affiliations in a more general way, include them in protocol (we
> currently use a magic room in MUC), and not try to expose them
(very
> much) in the affiliation lists of the node/rooms.
Okay, so setting affiliations with scopes. Maybe to handle domain
scope you'd
just do the same admin protocol exchanges against the MUC domain
JID instead
of a room JID?
Yes, could do. I'd leave the virtual room as a control, though, it's
nice for compat.
I agree that in general it would be confusing to differentiate
admins of
different scopes in a client UI, but we have this need, so I'd like
for it to
be possible. What about this:
<presence from="r...@conference.example.com/user_nick">
<x xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user";>
<item affiliation="admin" scope="domain" role="moderator"/>
</x>
</presence>
Can do - obviously you need an extension element in the muc join
element.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
