On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Yann Leboulanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: >> >> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> >>> I think the following text makes it clear, though: >>> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice >>> if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is >>> understood to include presentation to a human user if appropriate or >>> any other application-specific client-side processing' >> >> The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of >> XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue? >> > Maybe we should just choose what we want of this XEP and just re-phrase some > sentences.
Yes, I think it's clear that we need to disambiguate the text. > I personaly think that knowing that message has not correctly been received > and processed (decrypted for example) is usefull so that we know we should > re-send it. Now knowing that it has been read is something else. Note that 184 is explicit about not using it for triggering re-sends. /K
