Are the semantics equivalent? <no-copy/> is just a hint. <private/> has a "MUST NOT deliver forwarded messages” requirement on it. And the latter also has a “SHOULD remove” recommendation on it.
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Matthew A. Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > A pull request was submitted to remove <private/> and use the > <no-copy/> processing hint: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/83 > > The last time this came up, many many months ago, I recall there not > being consensus to change. But that was then and this is now. > > What are implementers doing today? > > * Are implementations using XEP-0280's <private/>? > * Are implementations using XEP-0334's <no-copy/>? > * Are implementations supporting both, but favoring XEP-0334's <no-copy/ >> ? > > > - -- > - - m&m > > Matthew A. Miller > < http://goo.gl/LK55L > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV+X22AAoJEDWi+S0W7cO18pkH/A15oVS0iRyt0OTBLp2K1/YO > DCDCa3pq18psNjXrk1CNS3U/pC2uYlR3eHvMLEhAMqNA/btoF2WhVYo7P0aW06DQ > WzE/kGK9s+2C2s4pUb0iz0O0Q7m0AmRwfBPq4+YkpvORIHIO2anOGI6SmZ8uXncx > Nvz9SxYaa2PYFpgqsr7zaUWHxPlhf3rqafqYVER1NPWiVTPUasEoVoLrPT3Q704K > vo7O4sdWBZVgjTCZc7RHChc8GljxCzwHki/w3wG0dl3gNZ6byYL3JvgDxrv9Uvs5 > rf0LZcTrdqTkKLoLr4SdcISvjzowrJN10M5gVHkPvQjgjt6ALYDtMYVzoACa9NI= > =2b16 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
