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

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 14:22:23 UTC 2015


On 23 September 2015 at 16:34, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> So summarizing...
>
> Procedurally:
>
> If we don't switch, then Carbons goes through to Draft now, and Hints either
> loses <no-copy/> or has a duplicate with softer requirements.
>
> If we do switch, then Carbons is delayed and has a version bump, and Hints
> needs editing and goes through Last Call to Draft.
>
> Technically:
>
> <private/> is a mandatory part of Carbons.
>
> <no-copy/> is an expression of opinion from the sender that Carbon copying
> and similar will not be useful or desirable.
>
> Which semantics make more sense?
>
> (And by the way I'd rather rephrase XEP-0334 in that way).

Fine by me, though I don't think this has much effect on Carbons.
There's no reason no-copy cannot be a mandatory part of Carbons, in
place of 'private'. The difference is that 'no-copy' can have meaning
outside of Carbons too, whereas 'private' is specific only to
XEP-0280.

> The only path I strongly object to would be making any of XEP-0334's Hints
> have mandatory (or even recommended in the RFC 2119 sense) behaviour.

Outside of the context of Carbons, this isn't going to happen -
XEP-0334 is not going to enforce mandatory behaviour.

Within XEP-0280, I think it's fine to say that a server that
implements XEP-0280 must (or SHOULD/whatever - currently it's MUST)
apply certain rules to messages containing the no-copy element.

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list