On 2015-01-08 14:52, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:37 AM, Edwin Mons <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 08/01/15 14:18, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2015-01-07 16:15, Adrien wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 01/07/2015 03:42 PM, Edwin Mons wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> XEP-0060 lists both delete-items and retract-items for the same feature, >>>>>> <retract/>. delete-items was added in the last revision, but it looks >>>>>> like an error to me. I think 7.2 should be revised, and one of the two >>>>>> features (likely delete-items) should be removed. >>>>> yes you're right. At least that's what I have been told ("delete-items >>>>> is the surplus one") when I asked. >>>> I forget why it was added in the last version of this XEP, but it surely >>>> wasn't missing as mentioned in the changelog, as we had 'retract-items' >>>> as a feature for a long time. Reading the text around it, I feel it is >>>> confusing, too. I'd rather go with talking about 'retracting items' and >>>> 'deleting nodes' thoughout, and not talk about 'deleting items'. >>>> >>>> I think that many (all?) clients ignore this feature for discovery >>>> altogether, so what about making 'delete-items' a thing that servers >>>> SHOULD also advertise along with 'retract-items', but have clients >>>> depend on 'retract-items' exclusively? >>> Personally, I rather not add cruft like this. Has any server ever >>> advertised this? Has any client ever relied on this? And, if it’s only >>> SHOULD, no client can rely on it… Better, IMO, to just require one >>> <feature/> to be advertised per feature. >>> >> >> Eh, I've seen delete-items advertised in the wild, because M-Link >> advertises it. > > Yeah but for how long? > > My view is that while it might be nice continue advertising delete-items for > clients which tried to adhere to XEP 60 as it’s written, adding a SHOULD here > turns what is intended to reduce interop issues into a long term interop > issue. Better, IMO, to leave it out of the spec. Server implementors will > likely continue to advertise delete-items for some reasonable period of time > without the SHOULD…. and that enough to give client implementors enough time > (years) to move to proper feature name. > > But, over all, not all that big of deal. Nothing I feel like I need to fall > on sword for.
Sure, based on current evidence, the impact of just dropping that feature name is zero in practice. I was hoping for other people speaking up with additional data. -- ralphm
