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

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Sep 16 21:21:31 UTC 2015


On 16.09.2015 16:33, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> A pull request was submitted to remove <private/> and use the
> <no-copy/> processing hint:  https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/83

A short remark about the changes of the PR: xep334 should be added to
the xep280 dependencies.

Since it appears that xep280 is going to advance to draft and given that
xep334 is experimental: Can a draft xep depend on an experimental one?

> 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/>?

Smack's doing <private/>

> * Are implementations supporting both, but favoring XEP-0334's <no-copy/>?

I would switch to xep334 in an instant. Kurt has a valid point about
xep334 <no-copy/> being not as strict as <private/>. Hence I think we
should change that bit in xep334 and incorporate the semantics of
xep280's <private/>.

- 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/20150916/fc22ad65/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list