-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/17/09 5:39 AM, Alexander Tsvyashchenko wrote: > Hello Peter, > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:50:38 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Several months ago we had some discussions on this list about small >> modifications to XEP-0136 (Message Archiving). Are the developers who >> have implemented this spec happy with the revisions? If so, I will ask >> the XMPP Council to approve version 1.1 as published here: >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0136-1.1.html >> >> Thanks! > > Sorry for delay, but I hope it's not too late ;-)
It's never too late to get things right. I have reviewed and applied your patch (with some slight wording fixes), and added you as a co-author. > In the attach there's diff for current XEP-136 SVN version with suggested > changes based on discussions in spring. > > Brief explanation follows: > > 1) "JID matching" is moved from all relevant commands into single section, > and in commands just the reference to this section is given. +1 > 2) "Matching" semantics removed from "chat" element: "chat" is > datastructure, not a command, so I do not see how we can talk about > "matching" there. > > Note that you didn't seem to agree with that, but unfortunately I failed > to understand why :-( Could you, please, look at it once more and if you > still do not agree - try to explain that to me? I now think you are correct about that. > 3) Archiving prefereces interpretation by server is spelled out explicitly > to avoid confusions and false hopes on its smartness ;-) Yes, that's good. > 4) "retrieving collection" exactmatch behavior clarified. > > 5) Removed "version" attribute from "modified" command - looks like a > typo? > > 6) Removed "exactmatch" attribute from "changed" and "removed" elements: > again, those are datastructures, so no matching is possible there. Correct. > 7) Added "Conversations Tracking" in implementation notes - I proposed to > add it a while ago, and it seems it is needed indeed as otherwise multiple > interpretations of server behavior are possible (see recent mail from > Sandip Nemade on that subject). > > For some of those changes, I'm afraid, you'll have to spend some time > fixing the language, but I hope that at least their intent is clear enough Indeed. Nice work, thanks for the patch! Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqz5pkACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwzAwCgqMeY0s79WVjZOztqzJoNQCbp TiQAni9AiBQjbTul4/2QXVdCPvFTsUV7 =kw8z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
