> > > > Why? Both sender and receiving server can reuse XEP-0203. >
When chatting in real time messages dont have the "archive's" timestamp associated with them. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Philipp Hancke <[email protected]>wrote: > Am 29.05.2013 10:40, schrieb Spencer MacDonald: > > IQ vs Message >> >> A message based approaches was considered as both chat states and delivery >> receipts use them, but it had the following disadvantages: >> >> - You lose the ability for the server to insert timestamps. >> > > Why? Both sender and receiving server can reuse XEP-0203. > > > - As mentioned current message archiving solutions don't currently store >> messages with no body. >> > > Right. And i just had a discussion about that with mattj... > > The rationale for that rule was presumably a bad experience when people > were offline for a long period of time and the amount of <message/> stanzas > sent by things like rss bots grew over time. IIRC jabberd1 failed to load > the .xml it used to store things and users could not log in any longer. > > Both of us thought that it would serve to avoid storing chat states... but > those shouldn't go to offline storage in theory anyway (and 0085 has a rule > about not storing them in the business rules in case they do). > > So it might be possible to change that rule, subject to further > discussion... > > > - The sender has no way of knowing if an offline entity supports chat >> markers, so what does the sender do in this situation? >> > > it may send them -- see the business rules in 0184 (bare jid) for an > example. > > > humm... >
