Re: [Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples

2017-02-21 Thread Ruslan N. Marchenko
On 21.02.2017 22:00, Kim Alvefur wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote: If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == . No, the current account is assumed, so ... In MAM case

Re: [Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples

2017-02-21 Thread Kim Alvefur
Hi, On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote: > In the examples across XEP-0313 the IQs are all to-less. > > If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server > itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == id='1'/>. No, the current account is

[Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples

2017-02-21 Thread Ruslan N. Marchenko
Good evening, In the examples across XEP-0313 the IQs are all to-less. If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == to='example.org' id='1'/>. In MAM case archiving node for the user is user's bare jid - hence