On 06.02.2017 10:31, Georg Lukas wrote: > * Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> [2017-02-06 10:15]: >>> Ah right, another unfortunate design decision. >> >> Not at all; the nonzas are semantically correct here because it >> doesn't make sense to have the CSI enable/disable "commands" be >> routable. > > I principally agree with your point, and I'm not explicitly blaming CSI > for using nonzas. On the other hand, nonzas were introduced in 0198 as a > kind of meta-element that is required to count actual elements without > interfering with them, and now CSI ended up (ab)using them as well. > > If I were going to redesign everything in XMPP, I'd probably > differentiate between "stanzas" (routable elements), "nonzas" (non- > routed elements between the user's client and their server; these > could also be used for other XEPs like Carbons to avoid devs' security > sloppyness), and "SM nonzas" which are the only ones explicitly excempt > from XEP-0198 counters.
That ^ I would seriously consider this change if we ever do a version bump of XEP-0198 Stream Management. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
