On 2012-08-18 10:08 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > To me, reset sounds like "here is where we left off" and then you'd > send changes from that baseline. But as I said, it's probably OK > as-is, so this is a tempest in a teapot. > > Peter
I'll go with a simpler clarification change: I hereby propose two changes: (1) A stronger clarification in the "event=reset" paragraph in section 4.2.2: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html#event Change: "and then process action elements within the <rtt/> element" Into: "and then process action elements within the <rtt/> element. (Any number of any [[[Action Elements(link)]]] can be included within <rtt/>)" and (2) Change the last sentence of 4.6.3. "Message Reset" http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html#message_reset Change: "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)." Into: "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). The behavior of <rtt event='reset'/> is logically identical to <rtt event='new'/> (differs only to allow presentation-related behaviours), and has exactly the same capability for ongoing real-time text in multiple action elements, including [[[Preserving Key Press Intervals]]]." Is this overkill, or prudent? Any remaining confusion?
