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

Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Sat Jul 28 05:22:37 UTC 2012

On 2012-07-27 23:48, Mark Rejhon 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.
>> 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
> Again, Kevin now needs to explain why a third disco case was needed
> (he suggested one in addition to the existing 0301 and 0308 disco).
> Kevin originally said it was for allowing 0308 to be used without 0301
> retroactive editing.  This was a solution to succeed on this feature
> without requiring a third disco to be added.
> Also, the change will still be be permitted under XEP-0001 draft rules
> -- making it stricter is a fully backwards-compatible change.  Kevin
> -- are you fine with always requiring 0301 to use 'id' attribute --
> for a client that implements both 0308 and 0301?
> Mark Rejhon
<GH> A MUST for supporting reception of id= when you have negotiated 
both 0301 and 0308 is the logical conclusion.
And if you transmit rtt during the correction then that MUST be marked 
with id= .
And you at least SHOULD support transmission of rtt during the correction.
I do not see a need for an extra negotiation of the combination of 0301 
and 0308. I think the idea behind it would be that it can be complex to 
present the edit last in rtt mode when you have already transmitted the 
beginning of next message. But that must be manageable.

Allowing rtt without id= during correction could end up in confusing 

Example: A and B are negotiating a payment.

This is the way it will be displayed if there was not id= support during 
A: I will give you 100 EUR
B: Not enough
A: I add 50 EUX
(A discovers the mistake. With edit last support without id= support, 
the corrected sentence would be displayed as new until it is completed)
A: I add 50 EUR and this is my last bid, take it or leave it, I want to 
get this done, tomorrow is my daughter's birthday and I do not have 
B: ( while A is typing ) Great 200 agreed

When finally A completes the sentence, the corrected message should 
replace the one with EUX, but that may be too late. The confusion has 
already caused harm.

With id= support in rtt, you will instead see the EUX changed to EUR, no 
duplication of text, and the correct deal achieved without confusion.
I recommend that we avoid this risk for confusion by requiring support 
of id= if both 0301 and 0308 are negotiated


More information about the Standards mailing list