On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:42, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On August 12, 2015 5:31:25 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:14, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On August 12, 2015 4:50:18 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On August 12, 2015 3:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> [..] >> >>> We've seen a lot of hinting at improvements, and I do remember your >> own suggestions, but I wonder if we couldn't do that in a new spec >> instead. When have we waited long enough to decide this is the best we >> can do for now? >> >> Well, that was the proposal I made earlier this year, and there was >> wide agreement that a new spec was the wrong approach, and waiting for >> Carbons was right. I’ve even convinced myself at this point that >> waiting for Carbons is probably right. > > I don't recall if I was against a competing spec back at the summit, but > generally believe competing Experimental XEPs are a good thing. Even if yours > isn't adopted, at least we have an easier-to-find record of it. Digging > through a heap of mails and chat logs is a lot easier with a XEP number. > >> Dave - do you have an ETA on the pubsub/Account stuff? I think that >> might help matters significantly. > > Agreed, although I still believe that stuff is much further in the future as > a thing to build on.
It’s not that I want to build on it, it’s that there’s an interaction, so I’d like to make sure that Carbons is written in a way that will allow PubsubAccount to work later on. An early Experimental XEP would be sufficient, I *think*. Then there’s the Normal message thing. If that’s the only other stumbling block, is it worth me trying to write a patch for 280? I haven’t discussed with Joe/Matt. /K
