On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: > That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving > stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.
What is the difference between that and just deprecating Message Archiving? Isn't that effectively what you're doing by adding a disclaimer? New implementations are encouraged to use MAM, and implementations that specifically need message archiving for some reason will use it regardless of the disclaimer (or the deprecated status) On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree. Also there are things that XEP-0136 supports that XEP-0313 > intentionally doesn't, but I've encountered people who really really > want those things. It has parallels to the XEP-0016 vs. XEP-0191 > debate :) > > In theory you could have both archive protocols accessing the same > store (with some limitations) I don't think deprecating it will stop people who specifically need those features, it will just stop new implementations that could use MAM from accidentally implementing an old technology that no one uses. In my mind it just comes down to: "What does the XSF want to recommend for new implementations of `history`?" And I think the answer is clearly MAM. Having anything else that also appears recommended will just confuse people. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
