[Standards] On 'private' and 'no-copy'

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Sat Oct 10 22:16:19 UTC 2015


On 10 October 2015 at 22:58, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> After various discussions, including here at the summit, I'm seeing a
> rough consensus that the <private/> element in Carbons or the
> ~equivalent <no-copy/> hint in XEP-0334 cause more trouble than they
> are worth.
>
> The only use-case I've been able to find is preventing OTR messages
> from being received by clients that cannot decrypt them. It is
> debateable whether receiving garbage is worse than not knowing that
> someone is trying to contact you on another resource.
>
>
FTR, I suggested a few use-cases (like IBB) which were all shot down for
other reasons (like no <body/>). So it really is only OTR, which itself
misuses the body element.


> As the elements are basically only a workaround for OTR, and OTR is a
> hack, and OTR has its own methods to solve this issue, one could argue
> that we shouldn't be using these elements.
>
> Does anyone have strong feelings about this?
>
> Regards,
> Matthew
>
> PS. I don't want to get this discussion tangled up with the
> advancement of Carbons, right now I'd rather just determine whether
> these elements are useful or not.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20151010/5419ea6b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list