* Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> [2021-12-07 19:38]: > I would like to point out that this specification relies on XEP-0359, > XEP-0422, and XEP-0428 all of which are deferred. While 0359 is widely > implemented and probably fine to rely on, I don't believe 0422 is as > widely used and we should probably let a solution for referencing other > messages shake out before advancing something that relies on one that > may not be the final solution.
I fully agree with that. (Personally, I'd just love to see origin-id disappear and have modern clients use @id consistenly everywhere to reduce the amount of ambiguity. However, I'm not going to veto just because of this) > I also just think that fastening is unnecessary in this context; > retract can just include the stanza ID directly, no need for all the > extra protocol. I understand that some server developers have a creative use case for fastening as a generic mechanism to make logical connections between different messages, but I think that each of the different logical connections requires its own business rules that can not be generalized into something that's less frightening than XSLT. Until we have sorted that out, I'm not sure if fastening fastening to our protocols is a good idea. I also very much like the simple syntax of XEP-0308 and I think it would be fully adequate for the use case of message retraction. I'd even go as far as suggesting an LMC payload as part of the fallback for 0424 to accomodiate clients that do 0308 but don't do 0424 ;) Georg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
