[Standards] Message Retractions

JC Brand lists at opkode.com
Wed Sep 4 09:37:27 UTC 2019

I just read the latest Council minutes (thanks Ted Sterr!)
and noticed that message retractions came up.


> Link notes that multiple people have noticed previous Councils appear to
> have forgotten about Message Retraction [3] and, like Reactions, it's
> being held-up by the current 'message attachment' contention.

I'm a bit out of the loop here, can someone please explain to me what the
"message attachment" contention is in regards to message retractions?

- JC

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:21:40AM +0200, JC Brand wrote:
> Hi folks
> I'm going to implement message retractions for Converse.js and while
> researching what's available XEP-wise I came across this proposed
> XEP from Lance Stout:
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-retraction.html
> It's from 2016 and was never accepted (i.e. assigned a XEP number).
> I searched the standards list archives and found a thread where it was
> discussed: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-October/031506.html
> I also found a later thread (2018) about message corrections where people were
> discussing putting message retractions in XEP-308 (Last message correction).
> https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-June/035154.html
> I don't see any specific reason in the archives why the XEP wasn't advanced,
> except that apparently enthusiasm for it fizzled out.
> I'm not the author of the proposed XEP, but I'd like to see whether this can be
> moved forward and I hereby offer to make any changes necessary to get it
> accepted (unless Lance would like to do so himself).
> Given that the proposed XEP is fairly old, there are a few things I'd like to
> add to it to bring it up to date with latest practices.
> These are:
> * Mandate support for XEP-0359  Unique and stable stanza ids)
> * Mention XEP-0421 (Anonymous unique occupant IDs) as an alternative to
>   including the user's JID in the tombstone (section 4 example 5).
> * Allow admins to see the original (now retracted) message when they receive
>   the tombstone from MAM.
> * Allow for supplying a reason why the message was deleted.
> Concerning the question of putting this XEP inside an updated XEP-0308, I
> propose keeping message retractions in a separate XEP, for these reasons:
> * We want MUC/MIX admins to be able to retract other occupants' messages
>   (but not "correct" them).
> * A message can be corrected multiple times, but retracted only once.
> * Message retraction has different implications for MAM than corrections.
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
> Regards
> JC
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________

More information about the Standards mailing list