The only issue I can foresee with this approach is if you have 3 messages, "Initial Message", "Corrected Message" and "Other Message", you could potential only fetch "Initial Message" and "Other Message" and the client would not know that "Initial Message" had been subsequently corrected.
Maybe this isn't such a big deal but it could happen? As I side note, wouldn't it make more sense if XEP-0308 was just called "Message Correction" rather than "Last Message Correction"? Regards Spencer On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 May 2013 14:33, Kim Alvefur <z...@zash.se> wrote: > > On Sat, 18 May 2013, 14:23:43 CEST, Spencer MacDonald < > spencer.macdonald.ot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also you may say something that is "confidential" that you might want to > >> remove after the recipient has acknowledged it. > > > > You really want to use some end-to-end encryption for that. > > > > Carbons (XEP-280) has a method for excluding single messages from > processing. That could be used to signal a wish for having a message > excluded from archiving, possibly broken out into a XEP of its own. > > +1, I like that approach (partly because it doesn't necessarily need > adding to XEP-0313, yay!). XEP-0136's controls for this were quite > complicated, but a simple tag that disables carbons, archiving and > perhaps other kinds of server processing would be quite welcome. > > > Or maybe security-labels. > > Now you go and ruin it... :) > > Regards, > Matthew >
