On 7/20/12 2:54 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Gunnar Hellström > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
<snip/> > Would it not be safer to say that you must support receiving id= and > reacting properly if you declare support of both XEP-0301 and > XEP-0308, and that you shall not send id attributes if negotiation > for support of both XEP-0308 and XEP-0301 fail? > > > If several people say so, I can consider that. > > But I agree with Kevin that XEP-0301 and XEP-0308 can be usable by > senders and/or recipients not using 'id' > I'd rather fix the rest of the spec to be unambigiously clear about > business rules -- let me know if there are confusing sentences in > XEP-0301 that can be clarified, to ensure spec compliance (for full > XEP-0301 / XEP-308 interop) Sounds reasonable; in any case, let's all review version 0.4 of XEP-0301 with that goal in mind. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
