On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Lance Stout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Imagine situations where the original message took 2 seconds to create >> (Enter was accidentally hit), but last message editing take minutes. How >> do you replace 2 or 3 <rtt/> elements in a proper manner, with over 100 to >> 1000 <rtt/> elements, while preserving all behaviour of XEP-0301? You >> could transmit 1000 action elements in a single <rtt/>, but that becomes >> quite unwieldly, especially, if you continue, and then go back to edit some >> more. So for this reason, I feel that <rtt/> doesn't belong in <replace/> >> >> >> Ah, I think we had different scenarios playing in our heads then. I was >> imagining just tagging all of the RTT updates with the <replace /> element >> referring to the original, complete message that was being changed. Like so: >> >> <message to="[email protected]" from="[email protected]" type="chat" >> id="102"> >> <body>First Lixne</body> >> </message> >> >> ... >> >> <message to="[email protected]" from="[email protected]" type="chat" >> id="106"> >> <rtt xmlns="urn:xmpp:rtt:0" seq="4" event="reset"><t>First >> Lixne</t></rtt> >> <replace id="102" xmlns='urn:xmpp:message-correct:0'/> >> </message> <!-- begins replacement editing RTT by including <replace /> >> --> >> >> <message to="[email protected]" from="[email protected]" type="chat" >> id="107"> >> <rtt xmlns="urn:xmpp:rtt:0" seq="5"><d p=8/></rtt> >> <replace id="102" xmlns='urn:xmpp:message-correct:0'/> >> </message> <!-- replacement editing continues --> >> >> <message to="[email protected]" from="[email protected]" type="chat" >> id="108"> >> <body>First Line</body> >> <replace id="102" xmlns='urn:xmpp:message-correct:0'/> >> </message> <!-- final replacement body for message 102 --> >> > > As far as I understand it, this is illegal use of XEP-0308 -- > > From my reading of XEP-0308, only a <body> can be replaced with a <body>. > If I replace the <body> with something else, the message might technically > be considered removed (because the <body> is removed from the stanza being > replaced) > > Can the authors of XEP-0308 clarify as to the intent of XEP-0308 in > transmitting multiple replacement stanzas for the same message id, for > different purposes? > > And consequently, can XEP-0308 be fixed to clarify on this ambiguity? > (Either made compatible with Lance's interpretation of XEP-0308, or > compatible with my interpretation of XEP-0308). If XEP-0308 is changed to > be clear with Lance's interpretation, this produces a good solution. But > right now, it's illegal XEP-0308 from my interpretation. > > Comments? > Peter / Kevin, any insight? This is a part of XEP-0308 that needs to be clarified.
