> I'm not sure I follow - surely we can use XEP-0050 here, and just define an > ad-hoc command that has the precise properties we need?
My opinion: making assumptions about what certain ad-hoc commands do is contradictory. To me, ad-hoc means 'made up on the spot', something that doesn't have a protocol, something that requires human interpretation to understand what a command does. If you want to make assumptions about commands, create a real protocol for it, don't abuse ad-hoc. That's also why I consider FORM_TYPE not to be something to be used for automation of ad-hoc commands, but rather an extra hint on how to display a form. > I'm intending to formally define the Missing Messages bit within this XEP, I > just wanted to get this much out, to try to avoid the accusations that I've > not made any such proposal. Even better. > Good question. I think the answer is probably yes - we have a command which > says "Gimme messages [from X] [and mark 'em read]". +1 > BTW, I keep on reading "intra-jid" as "infra dig" for some bizarre reason. > Don't ask me why. I won't. cheers, Remko
