On 11/26/25 9:39 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Hello everyone,
XEP-0045 is very quiet about how some of the options are to be
interpreted. For muc#roomconfig_allowinvites there is only one normative
line in the XEP, in the registry submission, which is "Whether to Allow
Occupants to Invite Others"
Now, it seems that ejabberd and Conversations have interpreted this to
mean "whether to allow occupants *who wouldn't normally be able to
invite otherwise* to invite other" which is to say, pretty much, in a
members only room can members invite members. On means members invite
members, off means only admin can (actually Conversations checks for
moderator role not for admin...)
This feels like the correct implementation to me given that you can't
meaningfully restrict invitations to a pubilc MUC (you could block
mediated invitations but we're moving away from those and they don't do
anything special in a public MUC traditionally) and it seems like
nonsense to ban admins from inviting members (since the admins can
change this settings anyway?)
Why it matters: currently Prosody does not implement this option at all,
because it seemed from the descriptio to mean something nonsensical. So
Prosody has (AFAICT) implemented the same thing as ejabberd and
Conversations, but under a custom name to make it clear how it works.
My proposal: change the one line of text in the XEP to instead read
"Whether to Allow Members to Invite Others".
That seems reasonable to me. The privilege of sending invitations
derives from the time when the spec used the phrase "invitation-only
room" for what we now call a "members-only room" (a change made in
Version 0.10 on 2002-10-15).
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
