On 23 September 2015 at 16:34, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > So summarizing... > > Procedurally: > > If we don't switch, then Carbons goes through to Draft now, and Hints either > loses <no-copy/> or has a duplicate with softer requirements. > > If we do switch, then Carbons is delayed and has a version bump, and Hints > needs editing and goes through Last Call to Draft. > > Technically: > > <private/> is a mandatory part of Carbons. > > <no-copy/> is an expression of opinion from the sender that Carbon copying > and similar will not be useful or desirable. > > Which semantics make more sense? > > (And by the way I'd rather rephrase XEP-0334 in that way).
Fine by me, though I don't think this has much effect on Carbons. There's no reason no-copy cannot be a mandatory part of Carbons, in place of 'private'. The difference is that 'no-copy' can have meaning outside of Carbons too, whereas 'private' is specific only to XEP-0280. > The only path I strongly object to would be making any of XEP-0334's Hints > have mandatory (or even recommended in the RFC 2119 sense) behaviour. Outside of the context of Carbons, this isn't going to happen - XEP-0334 is not going to enforce mandatory behaviour. Within XEP-0280, I think it's fine to say that a server that implements XEP-0280 must (or SHOULD/whatever - currently it's MUST) apply certain rules to messages containing the no-copy element. Regards, Matthew
