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

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Sat Jun 19 08:40:51 UTC 2010


On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> On 06/17/2010 03:29 PM, Konstantin Kozlov wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Konstantin Kozlov <yagiza at yandex.ru>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Let's sort out what means "received", "displayed" and "read" to
>>>> decide which of them are needed and which are not.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> So:
>>> What's the use case for needing to know when the user's client has
>>> received the message?
>>
>> If sender wants to be sure, that client on the other side received and
>> processed the message. So, the sender is sure that once the user on the
>> other side will pay attention to its client application, he'll be able
>> to read the message.
>> If delivery of all the previous messages were confirmed by the <received
>> /> reply and THIS one was not, the sender may assume, that the message
>> was lost somehow and may try to resend it (if he wants).
>
> This helps knowing which messages are lost in cases of brutal disconnection,
> decrypt failure, ...

I think the counterpoint to this is true, but not this, isn't it?

<received/> helps you know that a message was not lost due to brutal
disconnection (etc.) - but the lack of a <received/> doesn't imply
that it *was* lost (there's a chunk of text about this in 184 at the
moment).

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list