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

Christian Schudt christian.schudt at gmx.de
Thu Sep 17 11:31:48 UTC 2015


Hi,


> I get your point. But it feels wrong to define nearly identical
> extension elements in two XEPs. The author of xep334, Matthew Wild,
> already expressed his willingness to change xep334 so that it can be
> re-used in xep280. Therefore I'm all for changing xep334, then issue a
> last call for it, ideally advance it to draft, then issue another last
> call for a xep280 version using xep334 elements, and finally advance it
> to draft.

Speaking of reusing: Why not just re-use XEP-0079 here?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html#description-match-resource

action="drop" value="other" should do the same as <no-copy/> or <private/>.

In general XEP-0334 seems to have overlapping parts with XEP-0079, e.g. <no-store/> vs.
action="drop" value="stored".

Actually I am in favor for not having two XEPs with the same use cases.

- Christian



More information about the Standards mailing list