On 16 September 2015 at 22:26, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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/>. > > > The point of '334 is that it's pure a hint and cannot be relied upon to > provide any particular behaviour.
Erm. I see no problem with XEP-0280 requiring that a <no-copy/> message MUST (or SHOULD, whatever) NOT be carbon-copied by a Carbons-capable server. XEP-0334 didn't set out to enforce things like that, but to be re-used by other protocols in exactly this way. > I think changing that would probably be a mistake. I agree that we don't want to change the semantics we have today. > Despite your argument to the contrary, I think you and Kurt have convinced > me that we should keep Carbons (and <private/>) as-is. I'm in favour of the change. Regards, Matthew
