[Standards] Comments on Chat Markers

Spencer MacDonald spencer.macdonald.other at gmail.com
Sun Jul 7 08:58:31 UTC 2013


No your correct, I was trying to stick to the naming from other XEPs but it doesn't quite fit. 

Regards

Spencer


On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 08:57, Kevin Smith wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Spencer MacDonald
> <spencer.macdonald.other at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Before I send in my update with the above changes, I am think about adding a
> > requirement that all messages that can be marked, should have an "allowed"
> > child element.
> > 
> > <allowed xmlns='urn:xmpp:chat-markers:0'>
> > 
> > This means that messages containing only Chat States, Delivery Receipts etc
> > are not included in Chat Markers and this will network traffic for redundant
> > Chat Markers.
> > 
> > Does anyone have an opinion on this?
> 
> Sounds reasonable - although I'm not sure 'allowed' represents what
> you're trying to express (or I didn't understand). Would 'markable' be
> better?
> 
> /K 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130707/98e7510c/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list