I would personally be happy with either solution, but if we keep the no body rule for backwards compatibility, wouldn't we require "positive" message processing hints too, for when we want to archive a message with no body? i.e. allow-permanent-storage, allow-storage, allow-copy
Regards Spencer On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 June 2013 11:51, Spencer MacDonald > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > > I've been thinking about this a bit. Since the issue first came up, > I've been wondering if there are alternatives to the "no-body" rule. > The problem is that the rule is 95% correct, but when it isn't it's > not very helpful. > > I noted that XEP-0280 (Carbons) has a similar issue, but has an > explicit flag (the <private/> element) rather than attempting to come > up with any such rules. > > I've written a small proto-XEP that might be able to unify such flags: > http://matthewwild.co.uk/uploads/message-processing-hints.html > > With this we could either remove the no-<body> rule, store by default > and use no-store. Or we can keep it and add a 'store' hint (this one > might be easier but feels backwards to me in the grand scheme of > things). > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > Matthew >
