[Standards] XEP-0313: Treatment of type=groupchat in user archive with or without <store/> hint

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Fri Nov 24 08:23:33 UTC 2017

2017-11-23 23:45 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>:
>> On 23 Nov 2017, at 22:18, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 November 2017 at 18:33, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>> 2017-11-23 18:33 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>:
>>>> The main use case for having gc messages in the archive is “I remember I saw someone say something interesting about X, so now I’m going to search my archive for X to find it”, which really needs to have all the messages you’ve seen available, rather than splitting them between multiple sources, some of which won’t support MAM.
>>>> I agree that for “catch-up”, it’s not particularly useful, but knowing exactly what messages you’ve seen is.
>>>> Perhaps filtering MAM queries on type would be sensible.
>>> OK. I buy the arguments with future proofing for MIX and 'backup'.
>>> However we really need a way to exclude type=groupchat from a normal catchup.
>>> I see three possibilities to achieve this.
>>> 1) Add a data form field 'exclude-groupchat' which can be set to '1'
>>> 2) Add a multi-item form field 'exclude-types'
>>> 3) Add a multi-item form field 'include-types'
>>> I think (2) is the best option here because it is more flexible than
>>> (1) and has a better default if absent behaviour then (3)
>>> If other people agree I can create a PR for that XEP.
>> Though I agree with your analysis, I don't particularly like any of
>> these approaches. It feels like a road towards a proliferation of
>> filters in the XEP, which is something I would really like to avoid.
> There’s really no reason it has to be in 313, though, same as search doesn’t have to be.

Yes. It absolutely has to be in 0313. If we decide to store what is
basically useless (not having the real jid sender), incomplete garbage
in the user archive we definitely need a way to not query it during
catch up. And that method has to be specified in the XEP as a MUST. I
don't want to gamble that every server out there will implement some
niche third party XEP.


More information about the Standards mailing list