On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >> 5. Both <subject/> and <body/> in a single message >> >> "(A message with a <subject/> and a <body/> is a legitimate message, >> but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)" >> >> I object to this. It complicates subject handling. I believe much >> existing MUC software considers a message a subject change if it has a >> <subject/> in it. How should software determine this? Assume it's a >> subject change if there's no <body/>? What if there is not body, but >> xHTML-IM is included? What if there's no body, but some >> <unknown-element/>? > > IMHO a subject change should be a message with *only* a <subject/> child > element and no other children.
I think one ought to allow for extension elements in the subject change message. For instance, say the subject change message is delayed at an occupant's server, which hence adds a <delay/> element. Hence, I think it should be a <subject/> child with a <body/>. -- Kurt
