7 Jan
2026
7 Jan
'26
12:04 a.m.
I agree with Philipp. The entire XEP is a bit confusing when it comes to the
question of scope: is it meant as a general mechanism to be used in multiple
places or rather tailored to the blocking command only?
In my opinion we should define a general reporting element usable in various
places and then define one (or two, see below) usage scenarios where this
element can be used in the same XEP as well (e.g. use with blocking command
etc.). Afaik that's what we usually do in other XEPs as well, isn't it?
I think some small rewording and restructuring should be enough to reach that
goal fairly easily.
Also: In Monal you can outcast a channel participant in the same dialog used
to moderate a message. It would be really cool to also report the user and
message as spam from the same dialog as well.
But since spam reporting is currently only defined for the blocking command,
that isn't possible, no?
I'm planning to implement that XEP in Monal as soon as reporting messages/
users in channels is somehow covered by the XEP. I had even already started
to implement it, when I realized that the reporting element isn't defined for
my channel moderation usecase at all.
-tmolitor
Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2026, 19:00:42 CET schrieb Philipp Hörist:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:10, Dave Cridland wrote:
The feature is specific to reporting via blocking
already. Section 3
begins: Entities that support Service Discovery (XEP-0030) [2] and abuse
reporting using the blocking command as defined in this spec MUST respond
to service discovery requests with a feature of 'urn:xmpp:reporting:1'.
There's no behaviour associated with the report syntax except for
blocking, so it doesn't need another feature.
I would hesitate before suggesting that one XEP should add a "sub
namespace" to another's, I think that could get very confusing very fast.
If we had another consumer of reports, then we'd have another feature for
that mode of consumption (or production, I suppose).
Yes im aware that this
generic namespace is specific for functionality with
blocking command now. I think the text regarding that is clear enough in
the XEP.
But i think its a missed chance to choose a namespace that semantically
makes more sense. Clearly separating the definition of the generic element,
from the implementation in a specific context.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:06, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
I agree with everything except this. Why is it
insufficient to say "if you
support both blocking and reporting then you support reporting in
blocking" ?
I wrote insufficient, when i believed it was intended that other
future XEPs
also are supposed to announce urn:xmpp:reporting:1, but it seems the author
is aware and it was intended that no other XEP can announce this feature,
because it is bound to blocking command.
Regards
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org