[Standards] 2016 Compliance Suites

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Oct 12 08:12:20 UTC 2015

> On 10 Oct 2015, at 19:11, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Curtis King <cking at mumbo.ca> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:33 AM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
>> I agree that the latter three examples are nice to have, but I don't
>> agree that Carbons, Chat States or CSI are nice to haves at this point
>> in time.
>> Thats your point of view not mine nor our customers. That’s the problem with
>> the XEP it has a very narrow scope, just like carbons.
> I think it makes sense to remove chat states and delivery receipts
> since they don't really do anything but give you a nice UI indicator.

I don’t, FWIW, think they should be removed. They may be just a ‘nice UI indicator’ for some folks, but they always rely on your contacts supporting them for you to do so. I consider implementing both in at least the form that’s useful for your contacts (sending CSN and Receipts when asked) best practice.

> Carbons and CSI however have real benefits (in the form of making sure
> that a message gets delivered to the correct client(s), and making
> sure we're not eating battery on mobile devices). So I've left those
> in. The XSF may disagree, of course, but we'll see.

I don’t (although my opinion changes if this is Compliance versus BCP).


More information about the Standards mailing list