Ok, I think I need to proofread more carefully, to make sure my words are not mis-interpreted by some. My apologies!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Matthew Miller < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > About the agreed XEP-0308 and XEP-0301 compatibility: >> > I would like to amend the list of advantages that I sent earlier, due to >> > the improved retroactive editing protocol that is already agreed between >> > myself, Peter, Kevin, and Lance. (Except potential disagreement about >> > whether to have a third separate 'disco' which I still think is >> unnecessary) >> > >> >> I still don't understand your resistance to disco, and the argument "the >> software is buggy!" is specious at best. >> >> However, I'm willing to reserve full judgement until I read through the >> updated versions. >> > > No, no -- this one is different, evaluated from a different perspective. > This is a completely different matter from the "fallback method", as this > list simply illustrates optimization to the protocol for maximum > compatibility between a variety of combinations of XEP-0301 and XEP-0301 -- > it is not something any of my implementations ever plans to do. (the > fallback method is for a completely different reason). > Actually -- My rephrased version: No, no -- this one is different, evaluated from a different perspective. This is a completely different matter from the "fallback method", as this list simply illustrates optimization to the protocol for maximum compatibility between a variety of combinations of XEP-0301 and *XEP-0308*-- *skipping 0308 disco* is not something any of my implementations ever plans to do. (the *XEP-0085-style fallback method for XEP-0301* is for a completely different reason)
