Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

I agree that forms are a better fit for more complicated use-cases with multiple fields and options. And I can see that the benifit of a single-click "yes" vs. a manually typed "yes" isn't super high.   But I think you are missing the second half of the protoXEP, which is actions. Actions have a

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

to > the last message, there is no problem relating the response to the > original message. A "fallback" body is something that bots can choose to > do anyway, by allowing to trigger the action via a plaintex

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

The more I think about it, the more I agree that the two things are separate and should be separate. Same UX is unrealistic. Thinking of a mobile client, Quick Responses would probably be displayed near the on-screen keyboard, maybe above it. Actions would be displayed near the message that define

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

One example use-case for Quick Response is the memberbot, which asks yes/no multiple times during membership voting. Memberbot does not use a form to ask for yes/no, but a plaintext message. The idea of Quick Response is to enable memberbot to tell clients that "yes" and "no" are possible answers,

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

That's true, Responses and Actions are essentially separate things, though they go hand in hand and they were the result of a single discussion.   Yes, similar UX is expected and makes sense, though the specification obviously doesn't mandate any details regarding UX.   I don't know if splitting

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

Why would you use a form to send a plaintext message?   Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2020 um 13:26 Uhr Von: "Andrew Nenakhov" An: "XMPP Standards" Betreff: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response вт, 21 апр. 2020 г. в 16:18, : Hi Marvin,   I'll try to

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Quick Response

message, there is no problem relating the response to the original message. A "fallback" body is something that bots can choose to do anyway, by allowing to trigger the action via a plaintext response too (or comparable).   Hope that clears it up, Syndace   Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Ap

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0384 (OMEMO Encryption)

Which "extra robustness" are you talking about? GCM is not meant to handle larger amounts of data. Also the Double Ratchet protocol uses CBC internally, so this reduces the number of separate crypto primitives we need.     Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. März 2020 um 16:38 Uhr Von: "Thilo Molitor" An: "

Re: [Standards] OMEMO Key Agreement

e one you mentioned in this mail? (Maybe I missed a mail in the archives?) Best regards, Syndace [1]: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-May/032765.html On 15.10.2017 13:42, Remko Tronçon wrote: > Hi, > > A few months ago, there were discussions around the OMEMO k