[Standards] XEP-0184: <received/> vs. <displayed/> vs. <read/>

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Jun 16 18:57:55 UTC 2010


On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
>>
>> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following text makes it clear, though:
>>> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a  notice
>>> if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is
>>> understood to include presentation to a human user if appropriate or
>>> any other application-specific client-side processing'
>>
>> The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of
>> XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue?
>>
> Maybe we should just choose what we want of this XEP and just re-phrase some
> sentences.

Yes, I think it's clear that we need to disambiguate the text.

> I personaly think that knowing that message has not correctly been received
> and processed (decrypted for example) is usefull so that we know we should
> re-send it. Now knowing that it has been read is something else.

Note that 184 is explicit about not using it for triggering re-sends.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list