> On 10 Oct 2015, at 19:11, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Curtis King <ck...@mumbo.ca> wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:33 AM, Ralph Meijer <ral...@ik.nu> wrote: >> >> I agree that the latter three examples are nice to have, but I don't >> agree that Carbons, Chat States or CSI are nice to haves at this point >> in time. >> >> Thats your point of view not mine nor our customers. That’s the problem with >> the XEP it has a very narrow scope, just like carbons. > > > I think it makes sense to remove chat states and delivery receipts > since they don't really do anything but give you a nice UI indicator.
I don’t, FWIW, think they should be removed. They may be just a ‘nice UI indicator’ for some folks, but they always rely on your contacts supporting them for you to do so. I consider implementing both in at least the form that’s useful for your contacts (sending CSN and Receipts when asked) best practice. > Carbons and CSI however have real benefits (in the form of making sure > that a message gets delivered to the correct client(s), and making > sure we're not eating battery on mobile devices). So I've left those > in. The XSF may disagree, of course, but we'll see. I don’t (although my opinion changes if this is Compliance versus BCP). /K
