I'm in full support of both the PRs raised (#50 and #51); these address all the points I saw raised in discussion.
On 17 August 2015 at 18:37, Georg Lukas <ge...@op-co.de> wrote: > * Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> [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 >
