On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:29:10 +0100 "Goffi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2026, 11:10:36 heure normale d’Europe centrale > Stephen Paul Weber a écrit : > > Somebody signing messages as Goffi wrote: > > >Le vendredi 30 janvier 2026, 10:52:31 heure normale d’Europe > > >centrale > Stephen Paul Weber a écrit : > > >> >We don't have to be actively in the room. What we want when we > > >> >are in a large room, is to be able to check it when we want, > > >> >and be notified when > we > > >> >are mentioned. > > >> > > >> So you want to have the option to not only not get presence > > >> live, but > also > > >> not get live messages? > > > > > >??? Why we would not have the live messages? If the client is in > > >the room, > it's an "active" join, and it's working as usual. > > > > Yes but your whole proposal is about adding this "passive" join > > which I understood to not want live messages, correct? > > Yes, for rooms where the client is not actively displaying the chat, > and you get notifications when you are mentioned (or we can add > another option to get notification for every message, we still skip > <presence> in this case). > > In short the room automatically get from "active" to "passive" when > the client is not actively showing it and vice > versa. so, if i'm understanding proper, it would be a bit like Client State Indication where we are dumped the messages when we are actually looking at the MUC, right? _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
