[Standards-JIG] XEP-0136 Thoughts and Musings
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Mon Nov 6 21:59:06 UTC 2006
I agree with Olivier here. In my opinion the restriction to restrict the
content of the collected message to the text message in the <body/> element
are un-realistic in enterprise scenarios (return from actual experience).
The document assume that the message will only contain one body, whereas any
message may contain several <body/> element qualified by a different
xml:lang attribute. I also wonder why the xhtml-im content should be
Furthermore, as Chris pointed out, when it is supported, the <thread/>
element is very helpful in reconciling conversations.
In the end, unless the entirety of the content for non "container" messages
(holding states or time only) is recorded, the XEP will not be usable in any
real life "compliance" requirement.
Do we really want to see proprietary extensions flourish to compensate
easily corrected shortcomings?
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:52:18 +0100
From: Olivier Goffart <ogoffart at kde.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] XEP-0136 Thoughts and Musings
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Message-ID: <200611062053.00018.ogoffart at kde.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Le lundi 6 novembre 2006 20:10, Chris Mullins a C)critB :
> Section 5.2 forbids logging Message Thread Identifiers. It seems like
> these would be very natural ways of grouping messages, and tagging with
> metadata. Many clients use these today. Why are they forbidden?
In my opinion (that i have already expressed before), the whole <message/>
stanza should be stored.
> Collections seem insufficient for given heavy IM usage over a long
> period of time. A Mechanism to tag collections with keywords and
> metadata seems needed. The <note/> mechanism that's there seems
> insufficient. An automated mechanism for having the server create
> collections based on conversations, and dates seems like it would be
> Being able to add tasks and other items into these collections, such as
> "Task Item", "Important!" or "Follow up on 11/29/2006" would be nice. I
> don't want to spec all these now, but having a mechanism for adding them
> later is needed.
Adding more metadata would be probably usefull.
> Conversations that migrate from 1:1 to MUC don't seem to be addressed.
More information about the Standards