On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Gunnar Hellström <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <GH>No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine >> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message >> the >> edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict >> requirements are usually much more fruitful. >>> >>> But I do not understand why you want to introduce the risk of confusing >>> presentation by telling that it is possible to do last message edit >>> without >>> id= , when you have specified that feature for exactly that function. >>> At the moment we have no backwards compatibility to bother about. Why not >>> get it right from the beginning? >>> >>> Gunnar >> >> Again, Kevin now needs to explain why a third disco case was needed >> (he suggested one in addition to the existing 0301 and 0308 disco). >> Kevin originally said it was for allowing 0308 to be used without 0301 >> retroactive editing. This was a solution to succeed on this feature >> without requiring a third disco to be added. >> >> Also, the change will still be be permitted under XEP-0001 draft rules >> -- making it stricter is a fully backwards-compatible change. Kevin >> -- are you fine with always requiring 0301 to use 'id' attribute -- >> for a client that implements both 0308 and 0301? >> >> Mark Rejhon > > <GH> A MUST for supporting reception of id= when you have negotiated both > 0301 and 0308 is the logical conclusion. > And if you transmit rtt during the correction then that MUST be marked with > id= . > And you at least SHOULD support transmission of rtt during the correction. > I do not see a need for an extra negotiation of the combination of 0301 and > 0308. I think the idea behind it would be that it can be complex to present > the edit last in rtt mode when you have already transmitted the beginning of > next message. But that must be manageable. > > Allowing rtt without id= during correction could end up in confusing > presentation. > > Example: A and B are negotiating a payment. > > This is the way it will be displayed if there was not id= support during rtt > A: I will give you 100 EUR > B: Not enough > A: I add 50 EUX > (A discovers the mistake. With edit last support without id= support, the > corrected sentence would be displayed as new until it is completed) > A: I add 50 EUR and this is my last bid, take it or leave it, I want to get > this done, tomorrow is my daughter's birthday and I do not have time........ > B: ( while A is typing ) Great 200 agreed > > When finally A completes the sentence, the corrected message should replace > the one with EUX, but that may be too late. The confusion has already caused > harm. > > With id= support in rtt, you will instead see the EUX changed to EUR, no > duplication of text, and the correct deal achieved without confusion. > I recommend that we avoid this risk for confusion by requiring support of > id= if both 0301 and 0308 are negotiated > > Gunnar
Good use case -- but -- This still makes the current version of 0301+0308 (even without 'id'') superior to older suggestions of 0301+0308 (without any real time text at all, for retroactive) Since this is for the next version after 0.6, the two obvious choices are: -- Change to require retroactive <rtt/> whenever 0301+0308 is both active -- Keep my existing method (which I feel is still superior, for Gunnar's use case, to Kevin's original method that suggested a third disco be used) Comments from Kevin? He's the author of 0308, so I'd like agreement from him. Thanks, Mark Rejhon
