Hi Kevin. my concern is that "should" does not forbid. "not mentioning" does not prevent
So the issues raised continue to exist if there is not a prohibition of them. And given feature-mania it is likely that anything that is not prevented can occur and is likely to be implemented. Buyer beware should apply but this is not something that consumers look for. My comments were made only because - once the technology gets a bad name by security minded admins... it is hard to get it back. ** Perhaps we can shift that conversation, if it occurs, over to focusing the bad rap on bad clients rather than the technology. My comments were meant to suggest that perhaps we should think nefariously, and see if anything we are doing can be used for mischief, and if so, if there was something simple we can do to avoid it. I also think that simplicity and predictable behavior will serve us better in the long run than complicated or unexpected behavior (by consumers) like editing text that is offscreen. Standards usually enable - rather than restrict. But when it comes to safety, restrictions sometimes enable. that's all Thanks Gregg ----------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison On Mar 25, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > At this point in the discussion, I'd like to ensure that people > commenting have read the suggested spec, as some comments coming > through suggest they haven't. > > In particular, it does say that messages should be clearly marked. > It makes no suggestion about changing any chat transcripts that a client > stores. > It says that clients may be able to advertise that don't support (or > rather, not advertise that they do support) editing of messages older > than the most recent. > > Thanks. > > /K
