On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Florian Zeitz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
c) Render it as a new message. I don't think stanzas should be silently dropped, and I don't think edits should ever be silently applied. /K
