[Standards] request for reviews: XEP-0045 v1.25rc5

Kurt Zeilenga Kurt.Zeilenga at Isode.COM
Mon Sep 26 21:55:03 UTC 2011


On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> 
>> 5. Both <subject/> and <body/> in a single message
>> 
>> "(A message with a <subject/> and a <body/> is a legitimate message,
>> but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)"
>> 
>> I object to this. It complicates subject handling. I believe much
>> existing MUC software considers a message a subject change if it has a
>> <subject/> in it. How should software determine this? Assume it's a
>> subject change if there's no <body/>? What if there is not body, but
>> xHTML-IM is included? What if there's no body, but some
>> <unknown-element/>?
> 
> IMHO a subject change should be a message with *only* a <subject/> child
> element and no other children.

I think one ought to allow for extension elements in the subject change message.  For instance, say the subject change message is delayed at an occupant's server, which hence adds a <delay/> element.  Hence, I think it should be a <subject/> child with a <body/>.

-- Kurt


More information about the Standards mailing list