[Standards] Advancing XEP-0280 Carbons

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Thu Apr 2 08:35:31 UTC 2015

On 02.04.2015 10:08, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 1 April 2015 at 18:33, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com
> <mailto:mwild1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On 1 April 2015 at 17:37, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net
>     <mailto:dave at cridland.net>> wrote:
>         It is also not clear to me what, exactly, the "more" consists
>         of. I have heard:
>          - Reflection of messages to the source.
>     I think this only really makes sense in XEP-0280.
> ...
> <feature var='urn:xmpp:carbons:2'/>
> <feature var='urn:xmpp:carbons:advanced:0'/>
> ...
> <iq type='set'>
>   <enable xmlns='urn:xmpp:carbons:2'
> adv:xmlns='urn:xmpp:carbons:advanced:0'>
>     <adv:reflection/>

After giving it more thought I'm really undecided if I think it's better
to have this in carbons (xep280) or as extra XEP. But I think, given
that carbons is still experimental, and maybe soon deferred, I
personally would add this feature to the carbons XEP and not as extra XEP.

>          - Addition of MAM identifiers.
>     This can (and should) be a separate XEP.
> <adv:archive-id/>

Noooo, IMHO message IDs are orthogonal to carbons and especially not a
feature of carbons. A few people incl myself think more of something
like http://geekplace.eu/xeps/xep-mid/xep-mid.html.

>          - Other types beyond 'chat'.

Seems to be something we want to have. And I would tend to put this into
the carbons XEP too.

>     There is one more item, switching from <private/> to XEP-0334
>     Message Processing Hints.

Don't care, as I see, in this specific case, neither a big advantage in
re-using existing XEPs for carbon's private semantic, nor an disadvantage.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150402/fce184b3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list