[Standards] XEP-0280: <private/> vs. <no-copy/>
kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Wed Sep 16 21:45:46 UTC 2015
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Despite your argument to the contrary, I think you and Kurt have convinced me that we should keep Carbons (and <private/>) as-is.
I think I actually favor the <no-copy/> semantics over the <private/> semantics. Private semantics prevents use of carbons to achieve what could be achieved by forwarding… at expense of additional messaging traffic. For instance, maybe I (as user) am operating a client, call it logger, intended to capture all messages sent to me. The logger could make use of carbons to achieve this if it weren’t for the requirement that my server not give my logger what I asked it to provide to it. The idea that a sender of the message can cause my server not to carbon a message I’ve asked it to carbon seems quite odd to me. A hint is, I think, a more sensible semantic as it allows my server, possibly with my input, to what is needed to support my use of my clients.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards