Many other messaging apps are implementing features for self-destructing
messages. I dismissed the idea for a long time because of the impossibility
of actually enforcing deletion on the other side, but now I believe it
could be useful to help users "automate minimalist data hygiene" [1].
As far
On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:31, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 11:18, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:16, Guus der Kinderen
>> wrote:
>> > On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith
Not sure if I get what you're trying to say. I don't think that deletion
should be an edit-to-empty, I think we're in agreement there.
When defined in distinct XEPs, I think both XEPs would be (or should be)
near copies of each-other, which would be needlessly complex.
I propose to have one XEP,
On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:16, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Guus der Kinderen
>> wrote:
>> > I don't have much of an argument other than the
Why, when the use case, business rules and security considerations are
pretty much the same (or perhaps: should be pretty much the same)? Wouldn't
it be enough to perhaps have a distinct operation identifier in the same
protocol?
On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith
On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> I don't have much of an argument other than the obvious: both affect data
> 'after-the-fact'. Concerns raised against one should likely also be tested
> against the other - it's pretty much the same thing. As for
I don't have much of an argument other than the obvious: both affect data
'after-the-fact'. Concerns raised against one should likely also be tested
against the other - it's pretty much the same thing. As for the non-IM
case: that could also apply to 'correction' of data, rather than only
On 18 October 2016 at 09:55, Guus der Kinderen
wrote:
> Has the functional overlap with XEP-0308 "Last message correction" already
> been discussed? What's the reason for creating a distinct XEP? Would it be
> good to have the new XEP include 'correction', and replace
Has the functional overlap with XEP-0308 "Last message correction" already
been discussed? What's the reason for creating a distinct XEP? Would it be
good to have the new XEP include 'correction', and replace 308?
On 18 October 2016 at 10:44, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 17
On 17 October 2016 at 20:45, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>
> Title: Message Deletion
>
> Abstract: This specification defines a method for indicating that a message
> should be retracted.
>
> URL:
I'm not really proposing altering the existing standard, because it
works fine for several tasks. It seems it would be just a matter of scope.
I know users writing commands looks weird, but we should consider that
they will probably be using different clients at the same time and they
would
On 18 October 2016 at 08:11, jorge - w wrote:
> I'm just trying to receive feeback from the community, since i have recently
> joined it.
>
Sure - and it's appreciated.
> In order to avoid client dependency, any programming should be done at
> server side. I already know
On 18 October 2016 at 07:54, jorge - w wrote:
> My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133.
>
> But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users. That's
> why i think there should be a different interface for regular users mostly
I'm just trying to receive feeback from the community, since i have
recently joined it.
In order to avoid client dependency, any programming should be done at
server side. I already know anything can be coded with no need for a
standard, I'm just exposing an idea, not a personal need.
El
On 18 Oct 2016, at 07:54, jorge - w wrote:
> My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133.
>
> But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users. That's
> why i think there should be a different interface for regular users mostly
My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133.
But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users.
That's why i think there should be a different interface for regular
users mostly aimed to external applications. Users might prefer
:app_short_name to
16 matches
Mail list logo