Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: New MUC

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 13:04, Nicolas Cedilnik <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Is that referring to clients and servers still relying on resourceprep
> > when the RFC is clear that resource is a PRECIS OpaqueString
> Is that supposed to allow all emojis? If the lib I use says 🎉 is
> forbidden, is it because it does resourceprep instead of doing PRECIS? 🚓
>

It'll certainly be doing resourceprep.


> > (which has almost no limitations other than forbidding control
> > characters, which seems sensible for nicknames).
> I am not saying we should, but FWIW discord and telegram (maybe other
> networks too) do allow control characters in nicknames.
>

What sort of control characters?


> > XEP-0172 MUC support removed in version 1.1 of that XEP but still used
> > in the wild by some clients, notably Jitsi Meet)
>
> Some other implementations I know of that use XEP-0172:
>
> - Cheogram <https://wiki.soprani.ca/CheogramApp/Nickname>
> - Slidge (compatible with Cheogram to encode nicknames that are not
> valid resource parts — at least according to the libs I have used, cf
> above)
> - Maybe gajim some day if I ever find the energy to rebase and finish
> <https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/-/merge_requests/999>
>
> Now, the question that has been burning my lips: is "New MUC" the new
> codename of "GC3" or are those supposed to be different things?


As far as I know, GC3 has no published specification and is not an XSF
activity; I've avoided that name to (hopefully) avoid confusion with it.

Dave.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]