On Freitag, 27. April 2018 14:58:02 CEST Daniel Gultsch wrote: > If this is about local law I don’t think a delete function will do that > justice. · Clients might not implement the delete part of the XEP and as a > service provider I can not solely rely on my users using the right > client. Therefor I will have to offer a stand alone delete > functionality on my website or over customer support anyway. > · Clients might no longer have a reference to a file anyway. (The > sending client might have been uninstalled, local history might have > been cleared etc etc). Therefor I believe once we go down the rabbit > hole of deleting files we will probably need an list/index operation > as well. > > Since a simple delete won’t do local law justice anyway we should > think about whether or not we want to have delete in this XEP > independently of local law. > > I haven't seen a lot of requests for file deletion from client (or > server) developers yet. So I don’t think there will be a strong demand > that justifies the KISS approach of this XEP. Furthermore HTTP File > deletion - just like individual MAM message deletion - can - if there > is in fact a demand - easily go into it's own XEP.
I agree with your stance about deletion. Which is why I made it a separate PR. What do you think about the independent extension to the text I proposed in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/625 ? kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
