On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > On 2012-07-27 23:24, Mark Rejhon wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström >> <gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: >>> >>> <GH>No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine >>> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message >>> the >>> edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict >>> requirements are usually much more fruitful. >> >> Kevin needs to explain why a third disco case was needed. >> >> I don't see it as a LC holdup, and it will be a while before 0301+0308 >> implementations show up, so leaving it unchanged to 0.6 which is >> already in freeze & being converted for emailing to Peter.... >> >> Thanks >> Mark rejhon > > > <GH> Yes, if you have frozen the version for last call, let it go. I hope we > are allowed to decide on this during LC. But the less we change the better. > > But I do not understand why you want to introduce the risk of confusing > presentation by telling that it is possible to do last message edit without > id= , when you have specified that feature for exactly that function. > At the moment we have no backwards compatibility to bother about. Why not > get it right from the beginning? > > Gunnar
Again, Kevin now needs to explain why a third disco case was needed (he suggested one in addition to the existing 0301 and 0308 disco). Kevin originally said it was for allowing 0308 to be used without 0301 retroactive editing. This was a solution to succeed on this feature without requiring a third disco to be added. Also, the change will still be be permitted under XEP-0001 draft rules -- making it stricter is a fully backwards-compatible change. Kevin -- are you fine with always requiring 0301 to use 'id' attribute -- for a client that implements both 0308 and 0301? Mark Rejhon
