[Standards] References and XHTML-IM interoperability

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Dec 2 18:38:36 UTC 2016

On 12/2/16 11:32 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 2 Dec 2016, at 18:22, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>>> On 12/2/16 8:48 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:44, Tobias M <tmarkmann at googlemail.com
>>> <mailto:tmarkmann at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2 Dec 2016, at 16:39, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com
>>>>> <mailto:kevin.smith at isode.com>> wrote:
>>>>> They’re long and (as far as I can see at the moment) unnecessary when
>>>>> a simple per-stanza counter would suffice - only uniqueness within a
>>>>> stanza is needed, not globally, isn’t it?
>>>> As far as I know, technically an XML ID value needs to be unique in
>>>> the whole document, and for the XMPP case the document is the XMPP
>>>> stream/session. Using UUIDs would avoid having to go over and reassign
>>>> IDs when attaching one message to another, etc.
>>> Oh, you meant a literal ‘id’. That’s easily avoidable just by using a
>>> different attribute :)
>> IMHO this is exactly why 'id' was invented. :-)
> Indeed. I'm slightly concerned with stream uniqueness guarantees that that implies, though. What if you forward a message to someone else, or happen to request a stanza from your archive twice or whatever?
> I think we're probably already breaking that with various other cases and stanza ids though, so if we're happy doing it there do we need to worry about it here? (And if no, does mandating uuid make sense?)

Oh, I thought we were talking about identifying fragments within 
XHTML-IM formatting, which is why I thought 'id' was right. Perhaps I am 
missing context.


More information about the Standards mailing list