clarified which are the delivery-related errors

git-svn-id: file:///home/ksmith/gitmigration/svn/xmpp/trunk@2116 4b5297f7-1745-476d-ba37-a9c6900126ab

xep-0045.xml

@@ -722,7 +722,7 @@
         </tr>
       </table>
       <p>* A moderator MUST NOT be able to revoke moderator privileges from an occupant who is equal to or above the moderator in the hierarchy of affiliations.</p>
-      <p>Note: Certain roles are typically implicit in certain privileges. For example, an admin or owner is automatically a moderator, so if an occupant is granted admin status then the occupant will by that fact be granted moderator privileges; similarly, when an occupant is made a member in a moderated room, the occupant automatically has a role of participant. However, the loss of admin status does not necessarily mean that the occupant is no longer a moderator (since a "mere" participant can be a moderator). Therefore, the roles that are gained when an occupant is granted a certain affiliation are stable, whereas the roles that are lost when an occupant loses a certain affilitation are no hardcoded and are left up to the implementation. Since a client cannot predict what the role will be after revoking a certain affiliation, if it wants to remove both admin/owner privileges and the moderator role at the same time then it must specifically request the role change in addition to the affiliation change.</p>
+      <p class='box'>Note: Certain roles are typically implicit in certain privileges. For example, an admin or owner is automatically a moderator, so if an occupant is granted admin status then the occupant will by that fact be granted moderator privileges; similarly, when an occupant is made a member in a moderated room, the occupant automatically has a role of participant. However, the loss of admin status does not necessarily mean that the occupant is no longer a moderator (since a "mere" participant can be a moderator). Therefore, the roles that are gained when an occupant is granted a certain affiliation are stable, whereas the roles that are lost when an occupant loses a certain affilitation are no hardcoded and are left up to the implementation. Since a client cannot predict what the role will be after revoking a certain affiliation, if it wants to remove both admin/owner privileges and the moderator role at the same time then it must specifically request the role change in addition to the affiliation change.</p>
     </section3>
   </section2>
   <section2 topic='Affiliations' anchor='affil'>
@@ -5144,7 +5144,7 @@ xmpp:darkcave@macbeth.shakespeare.lit?invite;jid=hecate@shakespeare.lit;password
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY limit the number of configuration options presented to an owner after initial configuration has been completed, e.g. because certain options cannot take effect without restarting the service.</p></li>
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY provide an interface to room creation and configuration (e.g., in the form of a special Jabber user or a Web page), so that the ostensible room owner is actually the application instead of a human user.</p></li>
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY choose to make available a special in-room resource that provides an interface to administrative functionality (e.g., a "user" named "ChatBot"), which occupants could interact with directly, thus enabling admins to type <tt>'/command parameter'</tt> in a private message to that "user". Obviously this kind of implementation would require the service to add a 'ChatBot' user to the room when it is created, and to prevent any occupant from having the nickname 'ChatBot' in the room. This might be difficult to ensure in some implementations or deployments. In any case, any such interface is OPTIONAL.</p></li>
-      <li><p>A MUC service SHOULD remove a user if the service receives a delivery-related error in relation to a stanza it has previously sent to the user (remote server unreachable, user not found, etc.).</p></li>
+      <li><p>A MUC service SHOULD remove a user if the service receives a delivery-related error in relation to a stanza it has previously sent to the user; the delivery-related errors are &gone;, &notfound;, &recipient;, &redirect;, &remoteserver;, and &timeout;.</p></li>
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY choose to discard extended presence information that is attached to a &PRESENCE; stanza before reflecting the presence change to the occupants of a room. That is, an implementation MAY choose to reflect only the &lt;show/&gt;, &lt;status/&gt;, and &lt;priority/&gt; child elements of the presence element as specified in the XML schema for the 'jabber:client' namespace, with the result that presence "changes" in extended namespaces (e.g., gabber:x:music:info) are not passed through to occupants. If a service prohibits certain extended namespaces, it SHOULD provide a description of allowable traffic at the well-known Service Discovery node 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#traffic' as described in the <link url='#impl-service-traffic'>Allowable Traffic</link> section of this document.</p></li>
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY choose to discard extended information attached to &MESSAGE; stanzas before reflecting the message to the occupants of a room. An example of such extended information is the lightweight text markup specified by &xep0071;. If a service prohibits certain extended namespaces, it SHOULD provide a description of allowable traffic at the well-known Service Discovery node 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#traffic' as described in the <link url='#impl-service-traffic'>Allowable Traffic</link> section of this document.</p></li>
       <li><p>A MUC service MAY choose to "lock down" room nicknames (e.g., hardcoding the room nickname to the bare JID of the occupant). If so, the service MUST treat the locked down nickname as a reserved room nickname and MUST support the protocol specified in the <link url='#reservednick'>Discovering Reserved Room Nickname</link> section of this document.</p></li>