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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Sep 29 17:35:59 UTC 2011

On 9/29/11 1:59 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre<stpeter at stpeter.im>  wrote:
>>> What I was implying was, most deployed software is not following the
>>> 'message-with-subject-but-no-body' rule, and is following the
>>> 'message-with-subject-is-a-subject' rule. Making the latter wrong and
>>> the former right is going to make most deployed software
>>> non-compliant.
>> I think we might need to have a longer discussion about this, or a call for
>> consensus.
> On the other hand, making message-with-body an acceptable way of
> changing the subject is going to make existing compliant software
> non-compliant. I'd have thought that was bad (this doesn't just apply
> to servers - clients also need to know what a subject change is).

I really don't want to change this, given that it's been this way for 
ages. However, a while ago someone asked about whether it's OK to send 
non-subject-change messages that contain a body and a subject, thus the 
current text in the spec. Another option would be to forbid the latter.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Standards mailing list