Hi Dave, Sorry to re-launch the topic, but I still don't know what is wrong with JID mention and what I need to change to avoid the veto. I have had no explanation on the veto, and references doesn't replace mention, so there is no alternative for now.
So please tell me the reason of the veto and what I need to change Thanks Goffi Le lundi 8 février 2016, 11:41:22 Goffi a écrit : > Hello, > > Le jeudi 4 février 2016, 15:57:05 Goffi a écrit : > > I've not problem to have this XEP vetoed if there is a more generic > > option, > > but I'd like to know what it is and how it can replace a jid mention. > > > > Also, I still don't see why "it looks like half a solution". > > > > So more information and/or a link to a protoXEP would be welcome > > Now that a protoXEP is available, it's a bit more clear. > But still I don't see how, and I actually think that "references" does NOT > replace JID mention. At best it can complete it. > > Actually it corresponds to the "mentioned part" of JID Mention (section > 4.5). > > Don't take it wrong: I think references is a good move and this was lacking > in XMPP, and JID Mention may and probably should use it, but I don't think > it's a reason to put a veto on JID Mention as it doesn't replace it at all. > > References doesn't show the path, the author or the context of a mention, so > I feel the veto a bit unfair in this case. > > I would appreciate more explanation > > Thanks > Goffi > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
