> On 13 Jun 2016, at 11:49, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 13 Jun 2016, at 11:41, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 12 June 2016 at 12:39, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm bumping this thread since it hasn't yielded too many responses since I >>> originally voiced my concerns. >>> >>> To briefly summarize the matter again. >>> 1) XEP-0313 Section 5.1.2 describes a way for a server to inject the >>> original / real jid into MUC messages. >>> 2) This is a very useful addition to the spec in principal, however… >>> 3) As a client I can't trust this information without a namespace bump. >>> >>> This means I would love to implement this in my client but I can't. >>> >>> So I would strongly suggest to bump the namespace on MAM ASAP. However >>> bumping namespaces is not something we should do lightly and we should >>> consider doing other changes as well like the stanza-ids that have been >>> proposed over a year ago and are generally considered a good idea? >> >> I have a new version of XEP-0313 nearly ready to submit. One of the >> open questions is whether to bump the namespace or not. I was >> originally leaning towards not. However, if we do, there are some >> extra small improvements we can make. I'll review your concerns (which >> weren't already on my list of issues until now, so thanks for >> re-raising them), and merge them into the new revision (which I'm >> expecting to be the last before Draft). >> >> Meanwhile if anyone else has an opinion on this to share, now is the time. > > What are the improvements if we bump?
(*other* improvements) _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
