[Standards] NEW: XEP-0224 (Attention)

Andreas Monitzer jig at monitzer.com
Sat Aug 11 00:06:19 UTC 2007

On Aug 11, 2007, at 01:57, Sergei Golovan wrote:

> On 8/11/07, Andreas Monitzer <jig at monitzer.com> wrote:
>> Hmm would that be so bad? A headline window will surely draw more
>> attention than a regular message.
> How this separate window would associate with a chat thread?
> Especially if chat and headline messages are stored in different
> histories.

The message of the headline is not part of the discussion, and so  
shouldn't be stored along the rest. There is no association.

> IQ has a fixed clear structure. Its parsing usually performed by one
> routine,

I don't know many XMPP implementations, but in libpurple, <message/>  
is handled by a single function, whereas <iq/>-handling is spread  
around the whole XMPP plugin (since nearly every feature uses an iq  
stanza at some point).

> But it's not a big deal to process a message instead of IQ. What I
> want from any protocol detail is a feedback. XMPP would be much nicer
> if any stanza required an acknowledgement. For now, messages and
> presences are thrown without an acknowledgement (except for an ugly
> presence usage in XEP-0045 AFAIK). So, I'd like to use them as seldom
> as possible. Only if using message is unavoidable it may be used. (If
> I could, I'd use IQ even for a regular messaging.)

This sounds more like you have a general issue with the XMPP protocol  
as such. This is outside the scope of my XEP, please discuss this on  
this list on the topic of rfc3921bis.


More information about the Standards mailing list