This is a pretty straightforward part of RFC 6121 part 5.2.4. Side note: I hate our XMPP XML API.

Comment on attachment 8409314 [details] [diff] [review] Patch Review of attachment 8409314 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for looking at our XMPP MUCs! :-) The specification for MUC topics is http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#enter-subject It says "In accordance with the core definition of XML stanzas, any message can contain a <subject/> element; only a message that contains a <subject/> but no <body/> element shall be considered a subject change for MUC purposes." Unless I missed something, I don't think your patch implements the "but no <body/>" part.

Unfortunately the server I've been using to test this doesn't seem to send the message with only a subject, it also contains a buddy (that says something like "foobar has set the topic to xyz".

(In reply to Patrick Cloke [:clokep] from comment #3) > Unfortunately the server I've been using to test this doesn't seem to send > the message with only a subject, it also contains a buddy (that says > something like "foobar has set the topic to xyz". You meant body, not buddy, right?

(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] from comment #4) > (In reply to Patrick Cloke [:clokep] from comment #3) > > Unfortunately the server I've been using to test this doesn't seem to send > > the message with only a subject, it also contains a buddy (that says > > something like "foobar has set the topic to xyz". > > You meant body, not buddy, right? Yes, sorry. :)

Comment on attachment 8409314 [details] [diff] [review] Patch I changed my mind, it makes sense to match the behavior libpurple has, as doing something different could be perceived as a regression once we switch JS-XMPP on. Here is what libpurple does: http://lxr.instantbird.org/instantbird/source/purple/libpurple/protocols/jabber/message.c#219 I'm wondering if to exactly match we shouldn't move the "muc.incomingMessage(body, aStanza, date);" line after the topic handling.

(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] from comment #6) > Comment on attachment 8409314 [details] [diff] [review] > Patch > > I changed my mind, it makes sense to match the behavior libpurple has, as > doing something different could be perceived as a regression once we switch > JS-XMPP on. > > Here is what libpurple does: > http://lxr.instantbird.org/instantbird/source/purple/libpurple/protocols/ > jabber/message.c#219 > > I'm wondering if to exactly match we shouldn't move the > "muc.incomingMessage(body, aStanza, date);" line after the topic handling. I can take a look at doing that.

sawrubh, can you look at making the changes Florian requested here? Review can go back to me or him. Thanks!

So there can be multiple subject elements with different xml:lang's according to the RFC while there is no such mention in the XEP. What should be abide by?

Thanks for fixing this up! https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/23794caa2fd4 Could you please file any follow up bugs you found?