[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Reactions
dave at cridland.net
Wed Jul 31 15:59:50 UTC 2019
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 16:43, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > implementations *much* better than not doing so. Remember, without the
> > 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
> > 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).
HELLO I AM REACTING WITH A THUMBS UP EMOJI PLEASE UPGRADE YOUR MUA SO YOU
CAN SEE MY REACTION WHICH IS A THUMBS UP EMOJI BY THE WAY DID I MENTION
> Standards mailing list
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards