[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Reactions

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Jul 31 15:42:54 UTC 2019

On 31 Jul 2019, at 16:40, Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2019 22:00:30 CEST Marvin W wrote:
>>> Backward compatibility
>> There clearly have been opposing opinions on that matter. I believe they
>> are partly driven by different understanding on how Reactions might be
>> used in the wild, but I doubt there will be any way to reach consensus
>> on a rule that mandates a specific body or its absence. That said, I
>> support Florians suggestion to gather some implementation experience
>> first and decide on a more specific business rule afterwards.
> Right, I am very on board with using Experimental for this. I have a very 
> strong opinion on the "how" though.
> Please, let us, right from the start, add a legacy body in all 
> implementations. This will let us gauge how much it really affects legacy 
> implementations *much* better than not doing so. Remember, without the legacy 
> body legacy implementations will not see anything; they might not notice 
> they’re missing anything. On the other hand, if the legacy body is in fact 
> harmful, we will actually get that feedback and can work on how to improve it, 
> possibly by removing it altogether.

As an extension of the long debate in Council a moment ago, I’m very much opposed to adding a body fallback to these - I think it’s actively harmful for multiple reasons (mentioned there).


More information about the Standards mailing list