25 Mar
2024
25 Mar
'24
1:16 p.m.
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0333.
Title: Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)
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.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-04-08.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
26 Mar
26 Mar
5:12 a.m.
I very much think we should stop the trend of adding other comments in
the title. This is better than a funny joke, but it's still something
that's going to show up in citations. Let's just stick "note that this
was previously known as Chat Markers" in the introduction somewhere and
call it good.
Otherwise, this spec is useful and widely implemented, so let's go for it.
—Sam
On 3/25/24 15:16, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for
comments on
XEP-0333.
Title: Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)
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.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-04-08.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
--
Sam Whited
sam(a)samwhited.com
5:52 a.m.
We use Chat Markers extensively. For what it's worth, I think that it was a
bad idea to remove <received/> to not replicate XEP-0184, because reading
one spec is better for developers than reading two, and I'd rather revert
changes back to 0.4 and deprecated 0184 instead.
Also, Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers) is rather unfortunate name. I
understand the desire to share some infamy
<https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1587640766696140800> with Google and
their app naming practices, but protocol names should better be closer to
the point.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 16:12, Sam Whited <sam(a)samwhited.com> wrote:
I very much think we should stop the trend of adding
other comments in
the title. This is better than a funny joke, but it's still something
that's going to show up in citations. Let's just stick "note that this
was previously known as Chat Markers" in the introduction somewhere and
call it good.
Otherwise, this spec is useful and widely implemented, so let's go for it.
—Sam
On 3/25/24 15:16, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call
for comments on
XEP-0333.
Title: Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)
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.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-04-08.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
--
Sam Whited
sam(a)samwhited.com
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
6:05 a.m.
Hi Sam and Andrew,
I agree on the name. I felt like it was important that for the first
major update after 7 years and for the last call notification people
know what XEP we are talking about. However I will change the name
either on the move to stable or on the next update (which ever happens
first)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 12:53 PM Andrew Nenakhov
<andrew.nenakhov(a)redsolution.com> wrote:
For what it's worth, I think that it was a bad idea to remove <received/> to
not replicate XEP-0184, because reading one spec is better for developers than reading
two, and I'd rather revert changes back to 0.4 and deprecated 0184 instead.
The XEP has a section that explains why 184 was kept. It's not just a
different XEP it's a different semantic that many people prefer.
cheers
Daniel
236
days inactive
237
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrew Nenakhov -
Daniel Gultsch -
Sam Whited