-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Curtis King wrote: >> I unfortunately missed out on the discussion about making ver opaque, >> but the result doesn't seem plausible to me right now... >> I guess it is not a bad idea to define ver as opaque, but recommending >> hashes, or anything other than integers just doesn't seem worthwhile... > > well said.. > > In addition it makes the XEP more complex as you now have two possible > implementation choices to understand. One is always simpler than two ;-) > Having a single simple notification method is best for interoperability > and it doesn't get simpler than a strictly increasing integer. If these > long discussion about the fallout of adding hashes haven't proved it I > don't what would. > > I vote to remove hashes from the XEP and only specify integers. > Apparently not so well said, because what you make out of it seems to be different from what I meant. It is not in itself a problem that ver is opaque. Considering futureproofness it is probably a good idea. Notice that this is not about increasing numbers against hashes, but increasing numbers against opaque values. What I meant is that I can't see any real benefit in using something different then numbers (especially hashes) (thanks Matthew for pointing out a use-case BTW).
I personally think the way to go might really be putting r1, r2, ... in the examples, as Matthew Wild suggested (Maybe use r<number> in Example 3 and v<number> in Section 3, so we have different letters and no-one tries to be clever). It fixes the problems hashes cause in this place, yet enables you to see that the value is opaque from the examples. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoMWAIACgkQ0JXcdjR+9YQykgCgwaG0VLKDTLExMxs/l0dfPQUy aXoAn2cgFAtEIc7hJv1ME1TSkNT69r+4 =vkp0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
