On Tuesday 30 September 2008 10:21:56 Dave Cridland wrote: > On Tue Sep 30 17:42:58 2008, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > Am 30.09.2008 um 17:33 schrieb Dave Cridland: > >> And to cover our coversation elsewhere (through that funny > >> "Instant Messaging" thing), a downside of including <body> is > >> that a client might assume it's a reasonable alternative, whereas > >> otherwise it could bounce the message (type="error") which would > >> cause the sender to re-initiate the session. > > > > Messages with unknown stuff are simply ignored, the RFC says so > > IIRC. > > Hmmm. I wonder if we could move toward changing that. Messages > without any known stuff feel like they should result in an error.
I've tried to address this in XEP-226: Message Stanza Profiles. -Justin
