>  So simply spawn a new Channel? I know it's all Jabber based so technically
> this is possible but then would the user have a channel per document witn
> one extra covering the whole server?  If that's possible that's the second
> best outcome I can think of (The best being able to have a group chat
> without tying it toa document that way you can have a group of users
> chatting which can be tied to 0 1 or many documents)

> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Gregory Haynes <g...@greghaynes.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 May 2009 05:42:55 Roger Pixley wrote:
> > > Sending this out to the list to garner some mindmash. Currently

> > libinfinity

> > > (and hence libqinfinity) supports communication by Jabber on a server
> > > level.

> > I did some digging around in the libinfinity API for communication
> > features,
> > and AFAICT there are no document or server level user to user chat
> > facilities
> > in the library.  This could be (relatively) easily added on a document
> > level
> > via a note plugin without having to modify libinfinity.  Ill send out a
> > message
> > to Armin to make sure this is correct.

> > > For quite a few reasons I think that having an option to have it on
> > > a document level is a good idea. If you think of a large assembly such
> > > as Akademy or GCDS (Side Thought: How do you abstract that? *DS?)
> > > where you would like an easy one connect server for remote
> > > collaborators but then having all the chatter for the various projects
> > > and problems being discussed broadcast to everyone is unbearably
> > > confusing. Or further down the line when this is KDE wide and many
> > > types of clients can connect to

> > it

> > > (also FOSS now rules the world cause the others ignored then laughed
> > > then fought ) A fairly large business would want to use something like
> > > this internally to tie together teams. Even if there is one server per
> > > department you would want discussions to be more localized to say a
> > > group or a document.

> > > So having said that I think that a proposal currently to implemt proper
> > > channels and identifucation would be thrown out right away as something

> > too

> > > disruptive to do now.

> > On a server level this would certainly mean a major API change, but I
> > dont see
> > why this would be difficult to implement on a document level.  User
> > information
> > is already provided when joining a document, so maybe a chat facility
> > could be
> > retrieved after joining a session?

> > > My proposal is to allow messages which are sent to be
> > > optionally tagged then clients can read the tags on the messages and

> > react

> > > as they see fit. Clients who have no idea about the tags will just drop
> > > them Clients who know but don't really care can possibly simply display

> > the

> > > tags Clients that know and care can create channels or drop entire

> > messages

> > > of the user doesn't care about them etc.

> > > If anyone has another solution to the issue or sees the issue in a
> > > different light please reply and lets have a discussion :)

> > > Roger Pixley
> > > Sharer of Sentiments
> > > Kollaborator of Konsiderations

> > --
> > Gregory Haynes