On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:47 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Version 0.8 of XEP-0301 (In-Band Real Time Text) has been released.
Abstract: This is a specification for real-time text transmitted
in-band over an XMPP session.
Real-time text is text transmitted instantly while it is being
typed or created.
URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html
I would like people's opinion on the brand new "4.3 Processing Rules"
section:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html#processing_rules
It actually significantly shortened/simplified the "4.2 RTT
Attributes" section
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html#rtt_attributes
It recently helped some implementers (including one from Gallaudet
University who just joined this mailing list).
On the other hand, parts of it feels somewhat redundant to some text
already in "4.7 Keeping Real-Time Text Synchronized"
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html#keeping_realtime_text_synchronized
Comments?
Initially it looks good with the new 4.3..
But there is at least one case where it has introduced an unfavorable
distribution of information where I think it was better concentrated in
version 0.7.
That is for the seq attribute.
It is defined in 4.2.1
But in this version you moved part of the definition, its range, to 4.3.
I think that makes it harder to find all required fact about
implementation of the attribute seq.
At least the last sentence of the seq paragraph in 4.3 was better placed
in 4.2.1 where it could be located by browsing the contents if you were
interested in rules for the seq attribute.
I remember that there was a discussion on the risk for wrap-over in
handling seq. Is the wording now in line with the outcome of the discussion?
Was it acceptable as it is now, with no mentioning about the risk for
wrap-around when incrementing seq. Maybe all implementors should be wise
enough to handle wrap around properly. Or did the discussion end up with
the conclusion that a requirement should be inserted about usual
handling of the counter wrapping around?
Regards
Gunnar
Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
