Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071 - colouring

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:33:54PM +, Tedd Sterr wrote: > In search of clarity, here are all of the reasons against that I can think > of, and replies to those. Please correct me if I've misunderstood anything; > and additional sensible reasons are also welcome. [...] At the risk of further

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

I didn't expect this to turn into a drawn-out argument; I merely suggested a simple solution to something that could otherwise be seen as a problem. Nor am I continuing it for my own amusement, but I genuinely don't understand why it's such a contentious issue for some. So far the main

Re: [Standards] Private Data storage discrepancy

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:32:57PM +0100, Timothée Jaussoin wrote: > Hi Guus, > > Thanks for the work on Bookmarks :) Indeed that was, I think, a mistake. > On my side I followed the structure of the 0048 > (https://github.com/movim/moxl/blob/master/src/Moxl/Stanza/Bookmark.php#L30) > which, I

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:11:19 + Tedd Sterr wrote: > > This is true, however mostly these are quite coarse-grained. > > Extensions with lots of optional > > > parts inside - I'm thinking about XEP-0060 for example - tend to > > end up with various interop issues. > >