Defining optional <reason/> element in <retracted/> (XEP-0424)
I would like to bring up an inconsistency between XEP-0425 (Moderated Message Retraction) and XEP-0424 (Message Retraction). In XEP-0425 (Example 9, illustrating a tombstone), the <retracted> element contains a <reason> child element. Under standard XML namespace inheritance rules, <reason> inherits the namespace of its parent (urn:xmpp:message-retract:1). However, XEP-0424 currently does not define or mention <reason> anywhere in its specification or XML schema for <retracted> I propose updating XEP-0424 to explicitly allow an optional <reason> element as a direct child of <retracted>. This element would contain human-readable text explaining why the message was retracted.Since the <reason> element would be optional, It aligns the formal definition in XEP-0424 with the usage already illustrated in XEP-0425. And does not introduce breaking changes to any known existing implementations.
Does anyone know how to reach Lance Stout or JC Brand? I haven’t been able to contact them by email, and I’d appreciate hearing the authors’ thoughts on my proposal. yiwei wu <huxiangkun2003@gmail.com> 于2026年10月26日周一 22:29写道：
I would like to bring up an inconsistency between XEP-0425 (Moderated Message Retraction) and XEP-0424 (Message Retraction). In XEP-0425 (Example 9, illustrating a tombstone), the <retracted> element contains a <reason> child element. Under standard XML namespace inheritance rules, <reason> inherits the namespace of its parent (urn:xmpp:message-retract:1). However, XEP-0424 currently does not define or mention <reason> anywhere in its specification or XML schema for <retracted>
I propose updating XEP-0424 to explicitly allow an optional <reason> element as a direct child of <retracted>. This element would contain human-readable text explaining why the message was retracted.Since the <reason> element would be optional, It aligns the formal definition in XEP-0424 with the usage already illustrated in XEP-0425. And does not introduce breaking changes to any known existing implementations.
I've pinged Lance offlist to see if he has opinions about this. Peter On 11/1/26 1:10 AM, yiwei wu wrote:
Does anyone know how to reach Lance Stout or JC Brand? I haven’t been able to contact them by email, and I’d appreciate hearing the authors’ thoughts on my proposal.
yiwei wu <huxiangkun2003@gmail.com> 于2026年10月26日周一 22:29写道：
I would like to bring up an inconsistency between XEP-0425 (Moderated Message Retraction) and XEP-0424 (Message Retraction). In XEP-0425 (Example 9, illustrating a tombstone), the <retracted> element contains a <reason> child element. Under standard XML namespace inheritance rules, <reason> inherits the namespace of its parent (urn:xmpp:message-retract:1). However, XEP-0424 currently does not define or mention <reason> anywhere in its specification or XML schema for <retracted>
I propose updating XEP-0424 to explicitly allow an optional <reason> element as a direct child of <retracted>. This element would contain human-readable text explaining why the message was retracted.Since the <reason> element would be optional, It aligns the formal definition in XEP-0424 with the usage already illustrated in XEP-0425. And does not introduce breaking changes to any known existing implementations.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
I'm still alive. Thanks for the propsosal yiwei wu. I have another change I'd like to make for XEP-0424 and will include this as well. Should be up in the coming days. On 11/1/26 21:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I've pinged Lance offlist to see if he has opinions about this.
Peter
On 11/1/26 1:10 AM, yiwei wu wrote:
Does anyone know how to reach Lance Stout or JC Brand? I haven’t been able to contact them by email, and I’d appreciate hearing the authors’ thoughts on my proposal.
yiwei wu <huxiangkun2003@gmail.com> 于2026年10月26日周一 22:29写道：
I would like to bring up an inconsistency between XEP-0425 (Moderated Message Retraction) and XEP-0424 (Message Retraction). In XEP-0425 (Example 9, illustrating a tombstone), the <retracted> element contains a <reason> child element. Under standard XML namespace inheritance rules, <reason> inherits the namespace of its parent (urn:xmpp:message-retract:1). However, XEP-0424 currently does not define or mention <reason> anywhere in its specification or XML schema for <retracted>
I propose updating XEP-0424 to explicitly allow an optional <reason> element as a direct child of <retracted>. This element would contain human-readable text explaining why the message was retracted.Since the <reason> element would be optional, It aligns the formal definition in XEP-0424 with the usage already illustrated in XEP-0425. And does not introduce breaking changes to any known existing implementations.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
I'm in favor of tidying this up. I'm pretty sure this was just an oversight in the original. Thank you!
participants (4)
-
JC Brand -
lancestout＠gmail.com -
Peter Saint-Andre -
yiwei wu