On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 2015 14:00, "Christian Schudt" <christian.sch...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > Dave, maybe could you (or somebody else) elaborate on the "shortcomings" > and the "different demands of things like buddycloud" you have discussed > for those who didn't attend the summit. > > > > Also what's so bad about multiple parties chatting via a third party > chat service (your 2nd use case)? > > > > In the case of a private conversation between three people, it feels wrung > to introduce a fourth. > Agreed. They can join but don't get access to the "mentioned in confidence" history before they joined. Google Hangouts is very sensible about the two-people -> now-a-group upgrade handling. > Secondly, I think that we do want to maintain basic protocol compatibility > with old MUC, so clients joining via presence we probably want to support, > and clients sending messages would be unchanged. > Presumably this could be achieved through a translat-o-matic ( http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Summer_of_Code_2015#MUC_to_Channels_translat-o-matic ) My vision is that legacy MUC clients can still work. But more modern BC clients can handle the case of liking a comment ( http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buddycloud-channels.html#item-rating), comment threading, post revocation etc. S. -- Simon Tennant | CEO Buddycloud <http://buddycloud.com> | +49 17 8545 0880
