[Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Sep 19 18:58:49 UTC 2016


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving
> stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.

What is the difference between that and just deprecating Message
Archiving? Isn't that effectively what you're doing by adding a
disclaimer?

New implementations are encouraged to use MAM, and implementations
that specifically need message archiving for some reason will use it
regardless of the disclaimer (or the deprecated status)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree. Also there are things that XEP-0136 supports that XEP-0313
> intentionally doesn't, but I've encountered people who really really
> want those things. It has parallels to the XEP-0016 vs. XEP-0191
> debate :)
>
> In theory you could have both archive protocols accessing the same
> store (with some limitations)

I don't think deprecating it will stop people who specifically need
those features, it will just stop new implementations that could use
MAM from accidentally implementing an old technology that no one uses.

In my mind it just comes down to: "What does the XSF want to recommend
for new implementations of `history`?" And I think the answer is
clearly MAM. Having anything else that also appears recommended will
just confuse people.

—Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3


More information about the Standards mailing list