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

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 22:34:22 UTC 2015


On 16 September 2015 at 22:26, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> > 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/>.
>
>
> The point of '334 is that it's pure a hint and cannot be relied upon to
> provide any particular behaviour.

Erm. I see no problem with XEP-0280 requiring that a <no-copy/>
message MUST (or SHOULD, whatever) NOT be carbon-copied by a
Carbons-capable server.

XEP-0334 didn't set out to enforce things like that, but to be re-used
by other protocols in exactly this way.

> I think changing that would probably be a mistake.

I agree that we don't want to change the semantics we have today.

> Despite your argument to the contrary, I think you and Kurt have convinced
> me that we should keep Carbons (and <private/>) as-is.

I'm in favour of the change.

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list