On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Gunnar Hellström < [email protected]> wrote:
> 1. I suggest that you add a small section "6.5.7 Editing last message." > with general application information of this feature. > Extensions should not be intertwined by too much information about each > other, but some basic information would be in place here. > > Proposal: > The last completed message can be edited through combined use of the *id* > attribute of <rtt/> and application of XEP-0308 [ ]. If both XEP-0301 and > XEP-0308 support is discovered and accepted, then real-time editing of last > message MUST be supported. > This is unnecessary, as I already explained it is backwards compatible, and Kevin did say it can be supported as-is. I believe vendors should have the choice of 0301+0308 without enhanced retroactive RTT, and the suggestion I made (that was +1'd by Peter, Kevin, and Lance) is backwards compatible. 2. I suggest that you add a use case "7.5 Example of edit last message" > with a short sequence of editing last and returning to editing new. > Something based on the examples you have circulated would be fine. > Good idea, but there are a massively huge number of far higher-priority examples I would like to introduce first (e.g. improved key press interval examples). I am aware you are also a strong advocate of key press intervals. > 3. Would you consider that a sentence is needed towards the end of your > proposed section on *id* saying > "Before switching from last message editing to current message editing, > the completed last message MUST be committed according to the rules of > XEP-0308 [ ]. > Or do you think that that is obvious, or do you intend that jumping back > and forth between last and current may appear without committing the > replacement of the last for every such jump to current? > > 4. I suggest the you delete the word "improved" on line 3. It is not about > improving real-time presentation, t is about providing it at all. > This is not true. I explained it was 100% backwards compatible, even it was already pointed out and agreed that UX (User eXperience) may be strange but nontheless acceptable. Thus, an implementation rather than an interop issue. However, I can change the word "improved" into "enhanced" or other appropriate word. > 5. I suggest that you delete the words "at all" in the middle of the *id* > section. "used" is sufficient. > Good idea. Thanks Mark Rejhon
