On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Kozlov <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre пишет: >> >> This is my point: it is *impossible* for you to know if I have actually >> read a message you have sent me (we discussed this in our IM chat the >> other day). You can know if the message has been delivered to my client >> (and this helps to determine if there are delivery problems along the >> XMPP communication path). You can know if the message has been presented >> in an interface that has focus. You can know if the message has been >> marked-as-read. But you can't know if I have physically looked over all >> the words of your message (or heard all the words in an interface for >> the blind or whatever) and have conceptually absorbed what you have >> written. Even if my client forces me to click some "OK" button to >> acknowledge that I have read and understood each message, I'll just >> click that each time to get rid of the annoying popup. You can't know if >> I've read the message, so why pretend? >>
I fully agree with that. The XEP serves a useful purpose as implemented currently in clients. Any definition of "read" wouldn't be feasible and complete at the same time. > > Well. According to my experience, based on knowledge of my behavior and > behavior of my friends, the fact that my message is not "new" anymore on > the other side is enough to assume that user on the other side read it. See XEP-0085: Chat State Notifications. That nicely solves the problem of determining if the other side is paying attention to the conversation. > As for me, running chat application is for chatting. For reading and > writing messages. I can't image a guy who just ignores messages from > contacts in his contact list, just confirming without even reading them. At If you can't imagine that, then you clearly aren't trying. > least neither me nor any of my friends behave that way. What is he running > his IM application for? If he don't want to read message from the specific > contact, he can just put it into hist ignore list, and he will never receive > any confirmation message. But, once again, confirming reading of the message > without reading it actually sounds strange for me. Not all conversations are equal. Much of it is background chatter, or messages which don't actually require a response. It's quite convenient following such conversations in a background window, or through popups (toasts). I absolutely wouldn't want to have to manually indicate my having read every message I receive. > If there are some people, who doing so, that's the problem of those > people. Why other people should suffer because of them? Let's give to other > people such ability, 'cause in the most cases it will be really useful. > XEP-0184: Message Receipts solves a very specific problem for me: It lets me know my message got through, and wasn't swallowed by a network issue or server crash. All clients implementing the XEP do let me be sure of this. Changing this existing behavior would awkward, error prone, and of limited utility: i.e., very unwelcome. A lot of people are on wireless networks, or have otherwise turbulent connections, or have servers which crash. This isn't a rare problem at all. Your useful ability can be achieved through other means (XEP-0085: Chat State Notifications). Don't force the rest of us to suffer please. -- Waqas Hussain
