[Standards] request for reviews: XEP-0045 v1.25rc5
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Sep 27 18:34:20 UTC 2011
On 9/27/11 12:09 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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/>.
> I don't mind if it has other children than <subject/>, but existing
> implementations require there to be no <body/> on a subject change,
> and I see no reason to break them at this stage.
But I think a few things could be clarified to address the concerns that
Waqas has. I'll do that for the next release candidate.
More information about the Standards