[Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call ("Proposed")

Georg Lukas georg at op-co.de
Wed Aug 12 08:01:11 UTC 2015

* Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> [2015-08-12 08:14]:
> Given that a MAM based approach may be the  preferred medium term
> approach, it seems to me that we should focus efforts to work out what
> the medium term approach is going to be.


> Also, if there is a list of issues that some people view need fixing
> with carbons, I think it would be good to have that list explicitly

I've tried to compile a more general list of issues some time ago, to
be found here:


The carbon relevant things from that list and from the last 0280 advance
discussion are:

* Carbons for non-"chat" messages. Jingle signalling of incoming calls
  to all interested clients was mentioned IIRC.

* No filtering mechanism. Carbons are only for type="chat", the client
  can't add / remove types according to its needs.

* "False-positive" Carbons of MUC private messages (which are of
  type="chat"; see
  http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-May/029819.html and
  following messages for a discussion and possible solutions). I think
  the solutions need to be codified in the XEP.

* Carbon notifications (not strictly an XEP issue, rather one of proper
  UX) - when should a client ring a bell? Recommendations for this case
  might or might not be appropriate in the XEP.

|| http://op-co.de ++  GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N  ++
|| gpg: 0x962FD2DE ||  o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+  ||
|| Ge0rG: euIRCnet ||  X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y?   ||
++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150812/f64d50ca/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list