On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Kim Alvefur <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2012-08-14T20:09:28 CEST, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >>> The more I think about it, the more I think I that this XEP is a bad idea. >> >> I think the concept itself is a bad idea, but since some people really >> want to have this feature, having a XEP for it might be better than not >> having one. I do agree with Peter about this largely being a technical >> solution to a social problem. > > Actually, not necessarily a technical solution to a social problem, > for certain situations: > It solves the "linear real-time text problem". TDD's (text > telephones) transmit as a single stream of continuous real time text, > with no message boundaries.
Note -- RFC4103 is another linear real-time text technology that has no concept of message boundaries. (On RFC4103, you can backspace linefeeds). So the combination of 0301 and 0308 can enhances gateway interop with linear real-time text technologies; Sincerely, Mark Rejhon > > Gatewaying instant messaging (with XEP-0301 real time text) to text > telephones or other linear real-time text technologies, represents > some compromises when needing to backspace across message boundaries > (e.g. to the previous message). > > The existence of XEP-0308 solves this problem. > And, the existence of multiple-message correction allows backspacing > back across more than one message (especially if several <Enter> > keypresses were accidentally hit on a TDD / text telephone) > > Therefore, XEP-0308 (as agreed by me and Gunnar) is one solution to > the "linear real time text" problem; it makes it possible to backspace > across message boundaries, when gatewaying between linear real-time > text to instant messaging, and vice-versa. > > Sincerely, > Mark Rejhon
