[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: MAM Fastening Collation

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 2 18:28:13 UTC 2020


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 17:33, Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:

> On Donnerstag, 2. Januar 2020 18:23:02 CET Dave Cridland wrote:
> > > I played around with potential candidates for MAM-FC-like feature a lot
> > > and I came to the conclusion that any generic solution for summarizing
> > > is not going to work. Instead I think what does make sense is that the
> > > summarizing feature happens on a per-XEP level, where each fastening
> > > defines a set of summarizing rules and servers announce which server
> > > side fastening summarizing they support. On top, this allows for even
> > > dumber clients with smarter servers, as for example the message edit
> > > could actually deliver the edited body, see for example
> > >
> https://gist.github.com/mar-v-in/dd42833884fe671893dfcfb1f42ee6ca#smart-ma
> > > m
> > > (that proposal relies on the server knowing the type of the fastening
> > > even in encrypted cases, which isn't really a good thing, but that's
> not
> > > the important bit there).
> >
> > If fastenings are visible (to some degree), we can do rather a lot more
> > with the server, indeed. Fastenings are specifically designed to be
> viable
> > this way (and so if they are not, we should tweak until they are).
> >
> > But if each individual fastening type has to have code support in the
> > server, that really slows down the rate of innovation. So I (and Kev, I
> > think) thought that removing server knowledge would be essential.
> >
> > I'm absolutely not averse to having the client add in how a fastening
> > should be summarized
>
> I’m not sure if I’m missing something, or whether this is coming out of
> the
> blue. I can’t see anywhere where Marvin implies that *clients* should
> influence how Fastening works, only that each feature influences how it
> works
> (i.e. on the specification level).
>
> What am I missing?
>

>From the gist Marvin linked to in the quoted portion above, I understood
that both were occurring.

Clients indicated how fastenings were summarized in the "only" attribute,
there.

Entirely possible I've misunderstood of course,

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200102/fa786604/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list