Would it be possible to add "archive indicators" to XEP-0313 to solve my "messages with no body are not archived issue"?.
Maybe just adding <archive xmlns='urn:xmpp:mam:tmp'/> as a child of the message? Spencer On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber < [email protected]> wrote: > The stamp is if you read/acknowledge the message while you are offline >> (assuming you store the messages locally), if it isn't set the time is >> now. >> > > Oh... isn't that still delayed delivery, though? > > > The thinking behind chat markers is that people don't deal with individual >> messages, but with chats. It also has the benefit of if retrieve 100 new >> messages the next time I log in, I only want to mark up to the last >> message >> that I read not send a receipt for every one. >> > > I understand why this seems desirable, and I think for the "displayed" > status it could work, but for "delivered" this fails to solve the problem > (at least in my use case, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a use case > where it's useful) because it *assumes* reliable delivery instead of > *indicating* it, as 0184 does. > > As long as it is used in conjunction with 0184, a "displayed" status of > "up to" is probably fine. Though there probably need to be business rules > about how to deal with threads (such as: do not assume that you can say "up > to here" if there have been multiple threads. At least one per thread is > required. If a message was received with no thread marker, it must be > assumed to form a seperate thread.) In fact, having reasonable business > logic rules might be enough to differentiate vs just <active/> from 0085 > (which it currently is essentially equivalent to). > > > -- > Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma > See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted > edition right joseph >
