-
I checked
Version 4.0 (79)
and the only indication of private/direct message is addition of "From nick@muc.domain". Private messages send from Beagle have in the header "To (private message)". -
I used Psi, but the specification, contrary to what you say, doesn't mandate presence of
<x/>
, Sending a Private Message says:To allow for proper synchronization of these messages to the user's other clients by Message Carbons (XEP-0280) [19], the sending client SHOULD add an element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace to the message. Note: because this requirement was only added in revision 1.28 of this XEP, receiving entities MUST NOT rely on the existence of the element on private messages for proper processing.
-
Ok, so it is not possible to distinguish PM from normal 1-1 message on the client side if client is not joined to the MUC room. Yet, somehow everyone expects special parsing and treatment of does messages. Generally, I should say that this is not possible to be implemented properly as behavior will change depending on what you you client knows.
-
I've made a few adjustments to reflect XEP more closely, so it may behave better, but I'm still pretty sure that there will be issues with this feature (as it is not possible to distinguish 1-1 message from PM message without knowledge that messages came from the MUC room).
New version at dropbox.
Type |
Task
|
Priority |
Normal
|
Assignee | |
Spent time |
0
|
Not sure if it would be wise (considering moving to MIX)/feasible (especially with current UI) but having support for 7.5 Sending a Private Message would be nice.
If not complete support with sending messages, at least marking them as private would be helpful (if we have two resources, and with one we send a private chat, in Beagle it's shown as send to the MUC room itself, which is a bit confusing at first)