On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Ben Langfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > Because it's more general. "Last" implies that it's not possible to > modify prior messages, which is not explicitly prohibited by the > specification, nor should it be. For that reason, "last" is not as > clear as "previous", and is perhaps even confusing.
I'll buy this, to an extent. The previous version of the protoXEP, which I sent out for discussion quite some time ago, explicitly discussed models for both last-message-only editing and any-old-message editing. There was a significant amount of controversy over whether any-old-message was acceptable. My current version attempts to address this by presenting a method used for correcting the last message, but with a protocol form that is applicable to editing older messages. My intention is that if you discover this namespace, you know there is support for last message editing, and that we can define a new (disco) namespace to say that you support editing of older messages. TL;DR: I'm happy with exposing old-message editing, but I think it's important to also explicitly say "I support last message editing" with no implication that you may also allow older message editing. We could add the new discovery namespace into either this document or another. /K
