On 1/24/12 2:53 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: >> On 1/24/12 11:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >> After jabbering with Kev for a bit, here's a follow-up on the status >> code 210 issue (originally raised by Waqas Hussain). >> > >> I think Waqas meant that the client needs to listen for status code >> "110" (self-presence) plus "210" (nick changed) but I'm not sure. Waqas, >> please confirm. > > Aside: In fact, 210 is completely redundant, as if you receive a 110 > from a nick that wasn't what you expected, you know your nick has been > changed, but this isn't relevant here. > >> Via IM, Kev pointed out that this should be for self-presence only. I >> think he's right about that, so one of the paragraphs currently in the >> working version is wrong (right after Example 76): >> >> If the user's nickname is modified by the service as a result of >> registration and the user is in the room, the service SHOULD include >> status code "210" in the updated presence notification that it sends >> to all users. > > This was my complaint. Sorry if I was unclear and seemed to be > complaining about the other uses. > >> So I propose that we fix the text after Example 76: >> >> OLD >> If the user's nickname is modified by the service as a result of >> registration and the user is in the room, the service SHOULD include >> status code "210" in the updated presence notification that it sends >> to all users. >> >> NEW >> If the user's nickname is modified by the service as a result of >> registration and the user is in the room, the service SHOULD include >> status code "210" in the updated presence notification that it sends >> to the user. > > +1
OK, I've checked a new version into source control: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0045-1.25.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0045/diff/1.25rc11/vs/1.25rc12 /psa
