[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving
David Yitzchak Cohen
lists+jabber_standards at bigfatdave.com
Sun Jun 6 05:41:53 UTC 2004
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 12:00:31AM EDT, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Saturday 05 June 2004 7:32 pm, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:
> > Isn't x:delay allowed in the original message?
> > If so, we'd be losing info by clobbering it (assuming the original
> > and our proposed aren't identical, which will probably happen due to
> > network conditions). Maybe we should enclose messages in wrappers
> > (<item>s, maybe?) giving some basic context? (My votes would go to (a)
> > some indication of whether this message was from you or to you, and (b)
> > a timestamp in x:delay style.)
> Generally, the x:delay timestamp overrides the "time of receipt" (ie, the
> current time) by the client,
depends on your client ;-)
I can imagine doing some fun stuff with my own server, but I wouldn't
like people do be able to do the same "fun" stuff to me with theirs ;-P
> and for offline messages it is x:delay which is
> shown to the user.
There, sadly, you have no way of preventing the server from having
fun with dinosaur era messages without control of your own server at
> Is there a need to store both values?
For cases where a message is stored offline, it may be nice to know
(a) when it was sent, and (b) when you finally came online and found
it lying around. For complex filtering rules, you may even find that
delay is inherent to the other protocol (classic case: forwarding to a
JID behind an email gateway).
> On a related note,
> should the client be able to specify a timestamp for a message collection?
Shouldn't the timestamp range for a message collection be calculated by
the server based on its components? Oh, you mean, to have a timestamp on
"when the collection was collected," or something like that ... um ... I
don't have need for such an extension, but I wouldn't call it useless.
> Regarding to/from, this is determined by the presence of a "to" or "from"
> attribute in the message (the JEP forbids logging both, although it could be
> better spelled out).
In other words, a user can't log messages from third-party conversations
(say, another of his JIDs) without losing some info. ("Your pick:
either you lose the sender, or the recipient; but you can't have both!")
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right?
Please visit this link:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards