Le mardi 20 janvier 2026, 11:49:09 heure normale d’Europe centrale Goffi a écrit : > Sure, and I did agree with your arguments on group: I plan to update the spec > to remove the dedicated group node to use the same thing as in roster (I just > don't do it know so the spec is not changing while council members are > checking it).
Actually the situation changed after council discussion. We are now talking of not making the e2ee mandatory anymore, in other words, this specs could be used to store extended metadata for any contacts, with a dedicated node for e2ee version (so the client choose which data must be e2ee and which one can be known from the server). In this condition, I think that the separated group make sense for the original reasons I did it: - use an ID instead of the group name to identify it, so it can be renamed without breaking anything based on groups (like access control for instance) - extra metadata can be added to groups, like description, and probably other things in future XEPs So I would like feedback here, what do people think? Is it better to keep it simple and just using a group with a name like we do in roster, or should we improve it and have the possibility to add cleanly metadata? I'm thinking that the latter is the best option now that group can be known by server or other services, but I would like to have feedback. Best, Goffi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
