On 16.09.2015 16:33, Matthew A. Miller wrote: > A pull request was submitted to remove <private/> and use the > <no-copy/> processing hint: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/83
A short remark about the changes of the PR: xep334 should be added to the xep280 dependencies. Since it appears that xep280 is going to advance to draft and given that xep334 is experimental: Can a draft xep depend on an experimental one? > 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/>? Smack's doing <private/> > * Are implementations supporting both, but favoring XEP-0334's <no-copy/>? I would switch to xep334 in an instant. Kurt has a valid point about xep334 <no-copy/> being not as strict as <private/>. Hence I think we should change that bit in xep334 and incorporate the semantics of xep280's <private/>. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
