[Standards] XEP-0280: <private/> vs. <no-copy/>

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Wed Sep 16 15:35:27 UTC 2015


Are the semantics equivalent?  <no-copy/> is just a hint.  <private/> has a "MUST NOT deliver forwarded messages” requirement on it.  And the latter also has a “SHOULD remove” recommendation on it.


> On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> A pull request was submitted to remove <private/> and use the
> <no-copy/> processing hint:  https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/83
> 
> The last time this came up, many many months ago, I recall there not
> being consensus to change.  But that was then and this is now.
> 
> What are implementers doing today?
> 
> * Are implementations using XEP-0280's <private/>?
> * Are implementations using XEP-0334's <no-copy/>?
> * Are implementations supporting both, but favoring XEP-0334's <no-copy/
>> ?
> 
> 
> - -- 
> - - m&m
> 
> Matthew A. Miller
> < http://goo.gl/LK55L >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV+X22AAoJEDWi+S0W7cO18pkH/A15oVS0iRyt0OTBLp2K1/YO
> DCDCa3pq18psNjXrk1CNS3U/pC2uYlR3eHvMLEhAMqNA/btoF2WhVYo7P0aW06DQ
> WzE/kGK9s+2C2s4pUb0iz0O0Q7m0AmRwfBPq4+YkpvORIHIO2anOGI6SmZ8uXncx
> Nvz9SxYaa2PYFpgqsr7zaUWHxPlhf3rqafqYVER1NPWiVTPUasEoVoLrPT3Q704K
> vo7O4sdWBZVgjTCZc7RHChc8GljxCzwHki/w3wG0dl3gNZ6byYL3JvgDxrv9Uvs5
> rf0LZcTrdqTkKLoLr4SdcISvjzowrJN10M5gVHkPvQjgjt6ALYDtMYVzoACa9NI=
> =2b16
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list