I just read the latest Council minutes (thanks Ted Sterr!) and noticed that message retractions came up.
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-September/036391.html > Link notes that multiple people have noticed previous Councils appear to > have forgotten about Message Retraction [3] and, like Reactions, it's > being held-up by the current 'message attachment' contention. I'm a bit out of the loop here, can someone please explain to me what the "message attachment" contention is in regards to message retractions? - JC On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:21:40AM +0200, JC Brand wrote: > Hi folks > > I'm going to implement message retractions for Converse.js and while > researching what's available XEP-wise I came across this proposed > XEP from Lance Stout: > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-retraction.html > > It's from 2016 and was never accepted (i.e. assigned a XEP number). > > I searched the standards list archives and found a thread where it was > discussed: > https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-October/031506.html > > I also found a later thread (2018) about message corrections where people were > discussing putting message retractions in XEP-308 (Last message correction). > https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-June/035154.html > > I don't see any specific reason in the archives why the XEP wasn't advanced, > except that apparently enthusiasm for it fizzled out. > > I'm not the author of the proposed XEP, but I'd like to see whether this can > be > moved forward and I hereby offer to make any changes necessary to get it > accepted (unless Lance would like to do so himself). > > Given that the proposed XEP is fairly old, there are a few things I'd like to > add to it to bring it up to date with latest practices. > > These are: > > * Mandate support for XEP-0359 Unique and stable stanza ids) > * Mention XEP-0421 (Anonymous unique occupant IDs) as an alternative to > including the user's JID in the tombstone (section 4 example 5). > * Allow admins to see the original (now retracted) message when they receive > the tombstone from MAM. > * Allow for supplying a reason why the message was deleted. > > Concerning the question of putting this XEP inside an updated XEP-0308, I > propose keeping message retractions in a separate XEP, for these reasons: > > * We want MUC/MIX admins to be able to retract other occupants' messages > (but not "correct" them). > * A message can be corrected multiple times, but retracted only once. > * Message retraction has different implications for MAM than corrections. > > I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. > > Regards > JC > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
