Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

About the agreed XEP-0308 and XEP-0301 compatibility: I would like to amend the list of advantages that I sent earlier, due to the improved retroactive editing protocol that is already agreed between myself, Peter, Kevin, and Lance. (Except potential disagreement about whether to have a third sepa

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > Your current sentence is: > > "to have improved presentation of real-time text during message correction" > > Without the added feature of real-time edit, there is no presentation of > real-time text during

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 2012-07-20 07:17, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Gunnar Hellström mailto:gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se>> wrote: 1. I suggest that you add a small section "6.5.7 Editing last message." with general application information of this feature. Extensions should not

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > 1. I suggest that you add a small section "6.5.7 Editing last message." > with general application information of this feature. > Extensions should not be intertwined by too much information about each > oth

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 2012-07-20 00:17, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 7/19/12 4:12 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: >Here is a proposed amendment to XEP-0301 for full compatibility between >XEP-0301 and XEP-0308, to accommodate agreement between myself, Lance, >Peter, and Kevin. > >___ > >id >This OPTIONAL att

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 7/19/12 4:12 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Here is a proposed amendment to XEP-0301 for full compatibility between > XEP-0301 and XEP-0308, to accommodate agreement between myself, Lance, > Peter, and Kevin. > > ___ > > id > This OPTIONAL attribute is used only if *Last Message Corr

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

Here is a proposed amendment to XEP-0301 for full compatibility between XEP-0301 and XEP-0308, to accommodate agreement between myself, Lance, Peter, and Kevin. ___ id This OPTIONAL attribute is used only if *Last Message Correction [4] *(XEP-0308) is implemented. Sender clients M

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Why do organizations for the hearing-impaired need to write their own > libraries in order to write their own clients? Just use one of the > existing open-source libraries. That's what libraries are for, after all. > Fair comment -- it's

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 7/19/12 2:09 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Kevin Smith > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Mark Rejhon > wrote: > >> If I was to implement 301 and 308, but not RTT correction (the > >>

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > >> If I was to implement 301 and 308, but not RTT correction (the > >> intersection), another client would send me RTT corrections - a > >> significant number of stanzas that I'll then ign

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 7/19/12 1:40 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: -- Since you are the primary author -- when do you plan to execute a LAST CALL for XEP-0308? >>> I'm not opposed to requesting one ~=now, if it's useful. >> It's been less than 12 months si

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: >> If I was to implement 301 and 308, but not RTT correction (the >> intersection), another client would send me RTT corrections - a >> significant number of stanzas that I'll then ignore. I won't fail in >> any interesting way (although the UX w

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > I had not meant that every RTT element would have an id in it, but > that every RTT element that is part of a correction would include the > id it's part of the correction for. So > no id) I'm RTTing a new message > id) I'm RTT correcting the

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >> Including the id in an RTT element to indicate it's affecting the most >> recent message seems fine. Then sending a standard 308 stanza when the >> edit is complete seems sensible. This

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On 7/19/12 2:19 AM, Lance Stout wrote: >> I think it's worth including the id on every RTT edit, rather than >> just the first - it makes the state machine easier for the >> receiving clients and doesn't hurt the sending client. > > +1 on this. Even though the use of the seq value and error detec

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Lance Stout wrote: > > I think it's worth including the id on every RTT edit, > > rather than just the first - it makes the state machine easier for the > > receiving clients and doesn't hurt the sending client. > > +1 on this. Even though the use of the seq value

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > Including the id in an RTT element to indicate it's affecting the most > recent message seems fine. Then sending a standard 308 stanza when the > edit is complete seems sensible. This is I think what you're > proposing. I think it's worth incl

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

> I think it's worth including the id on every RTT edit, > rather than just the first - it makes the state machine easier for the > receiving clients and doesn't hurt the sending client. +1 on this. Even though the use of the seq value and error detection can be used to ensure that the RTT update

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > > From my reading of XEP-0308, only a can be replaced with a . > > If I replace the with something else, the message might > technically > > be considered removed (because the is remove

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > From my reading of XEP-0308, only a can be replaced with a . > If I replace the with something else, the message might technically > be considered removed (because the is removed from the stanza being > replaced) > > Can the authors of XEP-0

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Note: It sort opens a Pandora's Box if we discuss it *right now*. If added, > the question for X-message rectroactivity (editing messages 2 messages ago, > or 3 messages ago, etc) will eventually need to be answered. XEP-0308 seems > to leav

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > (scroll below to see a proposed XEP-0301 modification to gain full benefits > of XEP-0308) Including the id in an RTT element to indicate it's affecting the most recent message seems fine. Then sending a standard 308 stanza when the edit is c