* Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> [2017-02-26 11:53]: > Option 1 and 2 are obviously terrible.
Indeed. > 3) I actually don't see 0184 or 0333 specifying any type. Examples are > not normative. I'm reading this as I can use any type I want. > What Conversations actually does for delivery receipts (for both 0184 > and 0333) is to reflect the type of the requesting message. This should work out well for the 0184 'chat' use case. I'm not sure what happens if somebody sends an 'error' or 'headline' with an 0184 request. > For 0333 read markers it will always use type=chat and also add a > <store/> for MAM. (It is call 'Chat' Markers after all.) That sounds reasonable to me, could you please change 0333 to mandate the usage of type=chat? > 4) 0333 will see a few rewrites anyway. [...] I guess I can add a > <copy/> hint in there (and also specify the <store> hint. Currently, there is no <copy/> hint, it needs to be created first. I suppose I was one of the many people who didn't realize there is an actual use case for it. > However a couple of people have been complaining about the Hints XEP > and we should see if it actually makes it into draft before we > continue using it. I'm not sure what our alternatives are. A special element in 0280 that provides the opposite meaning to <private/>, which is currently getting kicked out in favor of 0334? We could add to the Carbons rules "a message that is a reaction to a message eligible for carbon-copies", but that is going to add headaches to server implementors. Georg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
