[Standards] review of XEP-0301 [ event='reset']

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sun Aug 19 02:08:42 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/18/12 6:03 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> 
> On 2012-08-18 6:50 PM, "Gunnar Hellström"
> <gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se>>
> wrote:
>> 
>> The original issue
>> 
>> "25. "Note: There are no restrictions on using multiple Action
>> Elements during a message reset (e.g. typing or backspacing
>> occurring at the end of a retransmitted message)." This seems
>> potentially confusing. IMHO it would be friendlier for the
>> recipient to process the reset as the state of the RTT message at
>> a point in time and for the sender to then send additional <rtt/>
>> elements for subsequent modifications. (Postel's Law and all
>> that.) However, that's unenforceable so I suppose it's OK
>> as-is."
>> 
>> I get the impression that it is confusing to call it
>> retransmission, when
>> 
>> 1. The 'reset' is instead an order to clear the real-time
>> message.
>> 
>> 2. The <rtt/> element may contain new action items, so the term
> retransmission does not fit well.
>> 
>> 
>> That could probably be amended by changing in 4.6.3: "A message
>> reset is a retransmission of the sender's partially
> composed text. "
>> 
>> To:
>> 
>> "A message reset is a command to clear the real-time message. It
>> may
> be followed by transmission of the sender's partially composed text
> as well as new text or other action elements."
>> 
>> /Gunnar
> 
> To be fair, the event=new also exactly does the same thing -- it
> also clears the real-time message, so if I say what you say, I am
> also introducing a potential new confusion about the lack of
> distinction between event=new and event=reset.  This must be
> thought out carefully. Your revision does not solve confusion
> without creating a new, separate confusion.

To me, reset sounds like "here is where we left off" and then you'd
send changes from that baseline. But as I said, it's probably OK
as-is, so this is a tempest in a teapot.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAwSqoACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz6sQCgkZoeMWHDvyLSYJLdP7YuoVRS
f+cAoPYgWsGOiIey3r9+ae+lnWDpZfOF
=nt31
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list