[Standards] XEP-0334 Message Processing Hints (Was: [Council] Council Meeting Minutes April 5th 2017)

Georg Lukas georg at op-co.de
Thu Jul 13 19:54:51 UTC 2017

* Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> [2017-07-13 18:56]:
> A is the opposite of B. So every message that's not A is B by
> definition. So we only need to recognize (be it by marking or by rules
> defined somewhere) ephemeral messages. And yes I totally agree that
> CSI should use the exact same rules.

You are right. The current idea of "bodyless messages are ephemeral"
just doesn't work, therefore we ended up with explicit markers for both
states. I'd love to make B explicit and only require a marker on
ephemeral messages, or even have a short and conscise set of rules on
how to determine them.

> If a message (errors and groupchats aside) can not be delivered to
> multiple resources you are either using messages wrong (should be a IQ
> instead) or we should rethink Carbons in general.

Maybe OTR and MUC-PMs are the only pathological cases here. Then you are
right and we don't even need <no-copy/> / <private>.

However, if we can imagine a nice new world of XMPP 2.0, I'd kill
resource locking with fire and have messages to a bare JID get delivered
to every resource, and messages to a full JID only get delivered to that
single resource.

|| http://op-co.de ++  GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N  ++
|| gpg: 0x962FD2DE ||  o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+  ||
|| Ge0rG: euIRCnet ||  X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y?   ||
++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170713/4473547b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list