[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Message Encryption

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Aug 18 12:42:32 UTC 2016


On 18 Aug 2016 13:00, "Kim Alvefur" <zash at zash.se> wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-18 13:09, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot wrote:
> > On that basis, maybe I could make @name optional, as in “MAY NOT be
> > included for those three XEPs already listed”, “SHOULD for any
> > mechanism not listed here”, and “SHOULD be ignored on a received
> > message if you already have a correct name for it and can present it to
> > the user”?
> >
> > Anyway, no matter the solution chosen, I will include the reasoning and
> > other solutions that have not been taken in the next revision of this
> > XEP.
>
> A registry of i18n'd names might be useful as a shared resource
> somewhere, so you could look up an appropriate name based on the
namespace.
>
>

Is OTR, or PGP, typically translated?

In any case, the name is, I understood, a convenience for clients that do
not recognise the namespace. I18n considerations feel like optimizing for
this failure case.

>
> --
> Kim "Zash" Alvefur
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20160818/8d468833/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list