[Standards] XEP-0359: Origin-id - When to include it
Hi standards, I have implemented Origin-id in Slixmpp[0]. I am not entirely sure if it should be included in every single though, is there any business rules concerning this? The XEP almost only talks about stanza-id in there. [0]: https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/slixmpp/merge_requests/21 Happy Hacking! -- Maxime “pep” Buquet signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0059 RSM Before, after, index combinations
* Guus der Kinderen [2019-08-02 10:05]: > As far as I can tell, XEP-0059: Result Set Management does not clearly > state how requests that include a combination of the before, after and > index elements should be handled. > > It does not appear to make much sense to allow for this. Client developers occasionally ask for being able to combine and in MAM requests, as this would help with filling gaps in the local history. But I agree this is quite obviously not supported by XEP-0059. You page through the result set by turning either to the next or to the previous page, you can't do both at once. Supporting a different model would require more changes to the XEP, I think. > In any case, I'd like to see the XEP updated to be more explicit. Agreed. The text should make a clear statement, and I guess the schema should be updated as well. Holger ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] XEP-0059 RSM Before, after, index combinations
Hello, As far as I can tell, XEP-0059: Result Set Management does not clearly state how requests that include a combination of the before, after and index elements should be handled. It does not appear to make much sense to allow for this. Without having identified explicit use cases, I'd argue that the added complexity of allowing combinations probably to outweigh any functional benefit. In any case, I'd like to see the XEP updated to be more explicit. Thoughts? Regards, Guus ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
