[Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Fri Jul 27 21:35:46 UTC 2012


On 2012-07-27 23:24, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström
> <gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se> wrote:
>> <GH>No, please make a MUST for id=  in edit previous. I can imagine
>> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message the
>> edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict
>> requirements are usually much more fruitful.
> Kevin needs to explain why a third disco case was needed.
>
> I don't see it as a LC holdup, and it will be a while before 0301+0308
> implementations show up, so leaving it unchanged to 0.6 which is
> already in freeze & being converted for emailing to Peter....
>
> Thanks
> Mark rejhon

<GH> Yes, if you have frozen the version for last call, let it go. I 
hope we are allowed to decide on this during LC. But the less we change 
the better.

But I do not understand why you want to introduce the risk of confusing 
presentation by telling that it is possible to do last message edit 
without id= , when you have specified that feature for exactly that 
function.
At the moment we have no backwards compatibility to bother about. Why 
not get it right from the beginning?

Gunnar




More information about the Standards mailing list