* Kevin Smith <[email protected]> [2015-08-17 15:47]: > After discussion in the XSF MUC, I’ve pushed another change, so > probably best to track via the > https://github.com/Kev/xeps/commits/carbons branch.
I'll see your patch and raise you $200. https://github.com/ge0rg/xeps/tree/carbons After some more discussion in xsf@ we figured out that at least two server implementations (prosody, ejabberd) haven't implemented section 6 of XEP-0280 anyway, and were using identical behavior for full-JID and bare-JID messages. Furthermore, section 6 is completely redundant, as the same behavior can be achieved under existing RFC 6121 §8.5.2.1.1 rules. OTOH, message forking (as opposed to carbon-copying) introduces several "problems": * a carbons-enabled client with a negative priority can receive chat messages under the section 6 rules. * a carbons-enabled client can not determine if it received a bare-JID message due to regular message routing or due to Carbons (this is useful for determining if a notification should be silent or loud, though a "smart" client can determine that by watching presence of the user's other resources). * it makes the XEP more complicated for no benefit. Therefore, I have gone a step further than Kev and removed section 6 (and rephrased section 7 accordingly). As this change does not break anything, I'd like to have it added to XEP-0280. However, it is based on Kev's patches, so please discuss it now, and I'll open a PR as soon as Kev's changes are (hopefully) accepted. Georg P.S: This was already discussed a year ago, the thread can be found here: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-April/thread.html#28807
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
