10 Mar
2024
10 Mar
'24
7:19 a.m.
Version 0.5.0 of XEP-0333 (Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)) has
been released.
Abstract:
This specification introduces a method to let the sender, or multiple
participants in a group chat, know that a client has displayed
messages up to a certain point.
Changelog:
* Remove <received/> to not replicate functionality.
* Remove <acknowledged/> because it was not implemented in the last 10
years and apparently is not needed.
* Remove Disco feature. Opting in via <markable/> is enough (dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
26 Mar
26 Mar
6:11 a.m.
I entirely missed this, and have no understanding of the rationale, but:
1) I'm somewhat ambivalent about removing <received/>, but it's certainly
well implemented by my anecdotological studies.
2) Removing <acknowledged/> seems OK, but I've considered various use-cases
for which an explicit, user-driven, acknowledgement is useful. But I've
never actually implemented it, so...
3) It's really not. Some clients and intermediaries need to know whether
they should expect a marker or not. No need to check this prior to sending
a <markable/>, true, but useful to track missing markers afterward.
Where was the discussion of this, and (more broadly) how does one know what
the discussion and rationale and consensus is if not on this list?
Dave.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 at 13:20, Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
Version 0.5.0 of XEP-0333 (Displayed Markers (was:
Chat Markers)) has
been released.
Abstract:
This specification introduces a method to let the sender, or multiple
participants in a group chat, know that a client has displayed
messages up to a certain point.
Changelog:
* Remove <received/> to not replicate functionality.
* Remove <acknowledged/> because it was not implemented in the last 10
years and apparently is not needed.
* Remove Disco feature. Opting in via <markable/> is enough (dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
6:24 a.m.
As I said earlier, some day down the road <acknowledged/> can actually be
useful:
But I could see this feature useful for something like
voice/video
messages to indicate that it has been played by the recipient. At
least,
Telegram does have such feature (not in group chats though, there it makes
no sense and would result in a lot of unwanted traffic).
But from the current sentiment I think it'll be another XEP.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 17:11, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
I entirely missed this, and have no understanding of
the rationale, but:
1) I'm somewhat ambivalent about removing <received/>, but it's certainly
well implemented by my anecdotological studies.
2) Removing <acknowledged/> seems OK, but I've considered various
use-cases for which an explicit, user-driven, acknowledgement is useful.
But I've never actually implemented it, so...
3) It's really not. Some clients and intermediaries need to know whether
they should expect a marker or not. No need to check this prior to sending
a <markable/>, true, but useful to track missing markers afterward.
Where was the discussion of this, and (more broadly) how does one know
what the discussion and rationale and consensus is if not on this list?
Dave.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 at 13:20, Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
Version 0.5.0 of XEP-0333 (Displayed Markers
(was: Chat Markers)) has
been released.
Abstract:
This specification introduces a method to let the sender, or multiple
participants in a group chat, know that a client has displayed
messages up to a certain point.
Changelog:
* Remove <received/> to not replicate functionality.
* Remove <acknowledged/> because it was not implemented in the last 10
years and apparently is not needed.
* Remove Disco feature. Opting in via <markable/> is enough (dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
6:34 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:11 PM Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
3) It's really not. Some clients and
intermediaries need to know whether they should expect a marker or not. No need to check
this prior to sending a <markable/>, true, but useful to track missing markers
afterward.
Where was the discussion of this, and (more broadly) how does one know what the
discussion and rationale and consensus is if not on this list?
I can add it back. When I showed this to people in the XSF room I
guess most people just considered the "does it hurt to
opportunistically include the <markable/>" side of things.
6:40 a.m.
Well, on the other hand, since the only scenario I can imagine using
<acknowledged/> in the wild has significantly different semantics from
readdisplayed
markers, I think that this is not really necessary in this XEP.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 17:34, Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:11 PM Dave Cridland
<dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
3) It's really not. Some clients and
intermediaries need to know whether
they should expect a marker or not. No need to
check this prior to sending
a <markable/>, true, but useful to track missing markers afterward.
Where was the discussion of this, and (more broadly) how does one know
what the
discussion and rationale and consensus is if not on this list?
I can add it back. When I showed this to people in the XSF room I
guess most people just considered the "does it hurt to
opportunistically include the <markable/>" side of things.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
6:45 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:40 PM Andrew Nenakhov
<andrew.nenakhov(a)redsolution.com> wrote:
Well, on the other hand, since the only scenario I can imagine using
<acknowledged/> in the wild has significantly different semantics from readdisplayed
markers, I think that this is not really necessary in this XEP.
The part I was considering bringing back is the Disco Feature.
43
days inactive
59
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrew Nenakhov -
Daniel Gultsch -
Dave Cridland