No your correct, I was trying to stick to the naming from other XEPs but it doesn't quite fit.
Regards Spencer On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 08:57, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Spencer MacDonald > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Before I send in my update with the above changes, I am think about adding a > > requirement that all messages that can be marked, should have an "allowed" > > child element. > > > > <allowed xmlns='urn:xmpp:chat-markers:0'> > > > > This means that messages containing only Chat States, Delivery Receipts etc > > are not included in Chat Markers and this will network traffic for redundant > > Chat Markers. > > > > Does anyone have an opinion on this? > > Sounds reasonable - although I'm not sure 'allowed' represents what > you're trying to express (or I didn't understand). Would 'markable' be > better? > > /K
