On 2012-08-18 6:50 PM, "Gunnar Hellström" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The original issue > > "25. "Note: There are no restrictions on using multiple Action Elements > during a message reset (e.g. typing or backspacing occurring at the > end of a retransmitted message)." This seems potentially confusing. > IMHO it would be friendlier for the recipient to process the reset as > the state of the RTT message at a point in time and for the sender to > then send additional <rtt/> elements for subsequent modifications. > (Postel's Law and all that.) However, that's unenforceable so I > suppose it's OK as-is." > > I get the impression that it is confusing to call it retransmission, when > > 1. The 'reset' is instead an order to clear the real-time message. > > 2. The <rtt/> element may contain new action items, so the term retransmission does not fit well. > > > That could probably be amended by changing in 4.6.3: > "A message reset is a retransmission of the sender's partially composed text. " > > To: > > "A message reset is a command to clear the real-time message. It may be followed by transmission of the sender's partially composed text as well as new text or other action elements." > > /Gunnar
To be fair, the event=new also exactly does the same thing -- it also clears the real-time message, so if I say what you say, I am also introducing a potential new confusion about the lack of distinction between event=new and event=reset. This must be thought out carefully. Your revision does not solve confusion without creating a new, separate confusion.
