[Standards] Business rules of Last Message Correction

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Jun 11 14:15:22 UTC 2018


On 11 Jun 2018, at 15:11, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 09:02, Tedd Sterr wrote:
>> As long as it doesn't confuse existing implementations, hopefully 
>> nothing; but I suppose that's what the namespace bump is for.
> 
> It sounded to me like this would be a new distinct namespace older-than-previous-message corrections, a namespace bump may be more contentious in a draft XEP.

I’m not sure that’s necessary, given that the current protocol was designed to allow exactly this.

(I’m not *entirely* sure that a namespace bump is even needed at the moment, but nor am I sure it isn’t)

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list