On 17 Jun 2015 22:56, "Curtis King" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Two years ago I agreed with you entirely. I maintained this position until I switched to a server and set of clients that supported it, and then found it actually works pretty well. I know there's potential theoretical holes, but i suspect those are more plugged than not with 198 and MAM. >> > > So, the quality standard we are aiming for is pretty well, with the holes plugged by other XEPs :-)
Perfect being the enemy of pretty well, to paraphrase von Clausewitz. In this case, pretty well means that for a user, the edge cases don't appear to get hit. Maybe I'm not experiencing them, though. > Since you always have to fall back to MAM in the multi-client case why not just use MAM always? > You can't. You would need to add in a bunch of stuff. If carbons weren't implemented by almost every server and a whole bunch of clients, that would be a more compelling argument. > ck >
