Am 25.03.2011 16:48, schrieb Kevin Smith: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Nicolas Vérité > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 16:30, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Nicolas Vérité >>> For only one edit, I'm not sure this is necessary for interop (and >>> therefore to include in the spec) - but clients are free to not render >>> an edit as an edit if they feel they don't want to for some reason. >> >> Drrring. Wrong. This is a strong user demand, maybe the strongest. It >> is mandatory to clearly state an edit as an edit. Or show the original >> along with the corrected (strike formatting, or whatever, if you >> want). > > Right, clients are free to render this however they want to. Perhaps I > should add an "I wasn't willing to render this as an edit" error? > > That way if a client wanted to reject edits after the first one, it > could, and if it wanted to allow them, it could. > > Does that work for your user requirements (your users would never send > a subsequent message, of course, so would never encounter the error - > but would send it if a more liberal client were try and edit > something)? > Since I have a feeling there might be a slight misunderstanding here I'm gonna ask: By "Not render this as an edit" do you mean: a) Ignore the stanza an pretend there was no edit b) Do the edit, but provide no visible feedback of this
I suspect you meant a), but Nicolas thought you meant b).
