[Council] JEP - 0022

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Wed Apr 24 14:44:03 CDT 2002


I agree with David (not that my vote counts). Even though this is
informational, I don't think it's too much to ask for the implicit
cancelation to be better defined. I don't think he's asking for protocol
changes, just better explanation in the JEP itself.

Julian

On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 15:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> This is informational. Perhaps we need a real standards-track JEP that is
> more complete, but this one is intended only to document the current
> protocol.
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
> 
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, David Waite wrote:
> 
> > -1
> > Composing events need to have more cancelation methods than defined (for 
> > instance, is someone still composing if they go unavailable?) It seems 
> > like cancelation can either be explicit, or implicit through a change in 
> > presence or the availability of the session composing the message.
> > 
> > Also, the 'offline' event needs to be defined as only being triggered by 
> > the recipient server (in a multi-server environment), only if offline 
> > storage is enabled, and only if the recipient server supports it. If 
> > this was a standards track, it could be defined that recipient servers 
> > must support it, but as informational it is completely optional and I 
> > would like the behavior in these cases to be explicitly stated.
> > 
> > Rather good otherwise,
> > -David Waite





More information about the Council mailing list