Jérôme Carretero wrote: >> So you recommend adding a 'parent' attribute to the <thread> >> element in rfc3921bis, correct? I think that change would be >> backwards-compatible, we just need to make sure that it is clearly >> specified. > > Yes. I see that change has already been made ;)
Provisionally, yes. Feedback is welcome. > I'd also suggest the use of time-based UUIDs, because : > > - for an > instant messaging application, the risk of collision is null since 2 > different machines couldn't generate the same UUID, and it's > unthinkable that one machine could start 2 threads in a few 10^-8s. > This risk is present (albeit ridiculous) with “fully-random” UUIDs. > > - time-based UUIDs could be convenient for being able to sort child > threads by date without relying on more information in the messages > (yes, this is a bit contrary to the opaqueness of the ThreadID...). > > Of course it forces implementations to use time-based UUIDs, which > costs a few more line of codes if done from scratch... and may be > wishful thinking since some implementations might already exist > today. What do you mean by "time-based UUID"? Could you show us an example or provide a reference to a specification? I am not familiar with this concept. Thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
