* Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> [2018-06-11 16:20]: > I'm also not sure that one would be necessary, if we can get away with > no new protocol or namespaces I'd be very happy.
Which is exactly why I asked the (non-rhetorical, seriously intended) question I asked further above in this thread, which nobody seems to have answered yet. As I see it, the *worst* thing that will happen if we allow Last-Message-Correction to affect also the last-but-N messages, is: Clients which implement the LMC spec strictly will display the update as a new message, instead of as a correction of the old one. Also, now might be the right moment in time to remind everybody that relying on a single client's advertised features when sending messages to the user of that client has a bunch of inherent problems, which is why I've spoken out against resource-binding in the past. The specific problems are: - Carbons and MAM-archived messages are delivered to other clients which you potentially haven't checked the disco#info of - Race conditions between you sending and the client going offline / changing availability might get that message re-routed - In a MUC, do you send according to the sub-set or the super-set of all joined users' features? What happens if you can't even discover their features because they are hidden by MSN weirdness? Georg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
