[Standards] Intra-Jid Private State

Remko Tronçon remko at el-tramo.be
Thu Jan 22 12:15:21 UTC 2009

> I'm not sure I follow - surely we can use XEP-0050 here, and just define an
> ad-hoc command that has the precise properties we need?

My opinion: making assumptions about what certain ad-hoc commands do
is contradictory. To me, ad-hoc means 'made up on the spot', something
that doesn't have a protocol, something that requires human
interpretation to understand what a command does. If you want to make
assumptions about commands, create a real protocol for it, don't abuse
ad-hoc. That's also why I consider FORM_TYPE not to be something to be
used for automation of ad-hoc commands, but rather an extra hint on
how to display a form.

> I'm intending to formally define the Missing Messages bit within this XEP, I
> just wanted to get this much out, to try to avoid the accusations that I've
> not made any such proposal.

Even better.

> Good question. I think the answer is probably yes - we have a command which
> says "Gimme messages [from X] [and mark 'em read]".


> BTW, I keep on reading "intra-jid" as "infra dig" for some bizarre reason.
> Don't ask me why.

I won't.


More information about the Standards mailing list