Some random thoughts on this discussion from an observer: From a purely technical point of view I was like "never make this part of 0045, please". But I think this is what we always got wrong. Not seeing XMPP also as a whole thing. We know what it is in reality but from a theoretical point of view it's just the sum of independent little pieces that /might/ add up or not. But we all know, they are meant to add up. And it only makes sense if they do. We should continue to embrace that idea a lot more. To point out the intended way more clearly and not focus on possible deviations that much.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:27 PM Tobias Markmann <tmarkm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Holger Weiß <hol...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> > wrote: > >> >> I'd be interested in feedback on this. Personally, I'd still prefer >> referring to MAM, as I think the client should to be fully aware of the >> implications of enabling that option, especially in private rooms. If >> we ever come up with another archiving XEP that supports XEP-0045, >> chances are the archiving semantics and access rules will be different. >> And it should be no problem for clients supporting future XEPs to use >> new MUC configuration options if necessary. >> >> However, if others prefer "roomconfig_enablearchiving", I'll update my >> PR¹ accordingly. >> > > I changed my mind, use roomconfig_enablemam or whatever. > > >> >> > So what's the way forward? Shall I provide an updated PR against >> > XEP-0045, or against XEP-0313, or something else (e.g., others suggested >> > putting all XEP-0045 configuration options into a separate registrar's >> > list)? >> >> While I understand how moving the configuration options into a separate >> document might be nice, I'm probably not the right person to make this >> happen, and I'd be grateful if this idea wouldn't block the addition of >> an option to enable MUC MAM. If people agree with such an option, can >> we just put it into XEP-0045 until someone moves things around? >> > > Guess XEP-0045 is fine, it already has a pubsub specific config uption, so > why not MAM too. > Further things missing in this change though are: > - possibly adding a status code for this, there is one for public logging > after all ( 7.2.13 Room Logging ), but this is probably not a requirement > - a reference to this option in section 13.3 Privacy, it sounds worthy > enough to mention there > > If that's done i'm +1 for the change. > > Cheers, > Tobi > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
