On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/17/2010 03:29 PM, Konstantin Kozlov wrote: >> >> Kevin Smith wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Konstantin Kozlov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes. Let's sort out what means "received", "displayed" and "read" to >>>> decide which of them are needed and which are not. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> So: >>> What's the use case for needing to know when the user's client has >>> received the message? >> >> If sender wants to be sure, that client on the other side received and >> processed the message. So, the sender is sure that once the user on the >> other side will pay attention to its client application, he'll be able >> to read the message. >> If delivery of all the previous messages were confirmed by the <received >> /> reply and THIS one was not, the sender may assume, that the message >> was lost somehow and may try to resend it (if he wants). > > This helps knowing which messages are lost in cases of brutal disconnection, > decrypt failure, ...
I think the counterpoint to this is true, but not this, isn't it? <received/> helps you know that a message was not lost due to brutal disconnection (etc.) - but the lack of a <received/> doesn't imply that it *was* lost (there's a chunk of text about this in 184 at the moment). /K
