[Standards] Resurrecting Reactions
kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Dec 11 15:10:32 UTC 2019
On 10 Dec 2019, at 18:46, Andrew Nenakhov <andrew.nenakhov at redsolution.com> wrote:
> Our stance on reactions, in a collection of theses:
> - the most practical way to address reactions is something we refer to as 'fastening'.
> - fastening also looks like the best way to attach error messages to stanzas
> - fastening is also a possible way to do working message threads, slack-style )there are other ways to make threads, but still, it's a possibility)
> - XMPP would greatly benefit from a unified approach to all these things
> - archive question is not addressed at all, and storing all this crap in a continuous stream is limiting archive usefulness (read markers are bad enough already)
> - also we can run into situations when we get attachment to a message that we don't yet have
> - we need a separate way to get 'main' message sequence and 'attachments'
> - an 'inbox' system should use versioning to allow catching up missed attachments in a conversation, just as it has to allow catching up on edits and msg retractions)
Agreed with all of this, I think.
> (I'll be using the word 'attachment' for 'fastented' stanzas)
> We are likely to try building a modified archive where we will have 3 types of requests to MAM:
> - basic, no changes from current
> - with aggregated counter, where message is returned with a number of attachments it currently has. Possibly, aggregated on type (6 😂 3 😡 1 👍 1 💩), without authorship of those attachments
> - verbose, with all messages and all their attachments, maybe nested.
I think this is pretty much what was discussed at the Summit (I don’t remember if that was in the room or over dinner!).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards