I don't have much of an argument other than the obvious: both affect data
'after-the-fact'. Concerns raised against one should likely also be tested
against the other - it's pretty much the same thing. As for the non-IM
case: that could also apply to 'correction' of data, rather than only
deletion. Implementation-wise, it'd make sense to combine both efforts too,
I'd say.

On 18 October 2016 at 10:57, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote:

> On 18 October 2016 at 09:55, Guus der Kinderen
> <guus.der.kinde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Has the functional overlap with XEP-0308 "Last message correction"
> already
> > been discussed? What's the reason for creating a distinct XEP? Would it
> be
> > good to have the new XEP include 'correction', and replace 308?
> >
>
> It was discussed - we could do this as a message correction to a
> zero-length message - but firstly I think the semantics are somewhat
> different, and secondly I think this might be usable in some non-IM
> cases.
>
> I'm open to argument, mind.
>
> > On 18 October 2016 at 10:44, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17 October 2016 at 20:45, XMPP Extensions Editor <edi...@xmpp.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> >> >
> >> > Title: Message Deletion
> >> >
> >> > Abstract: This specification defines a method for indicating that a
> >> > message should be retracted.
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-retraction.html
> >> >
> >> > The council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
> >> > proposal as an official XEP.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Blocking:
> >>
> >> The XEP title hasn't changed; we really need to avoid the "Deletion"
> >> word to properly describe what this XEP is doing. (Or rather, what
> >> it's not doing).
> >>
> >> Non-Blocking (feel free to dispute these):
> >>
> >> 1) MAM access.
> >>
> >> I'm concerned that there exists a mechanism for abuse if messages are
> >> ever truly expunged from the archive. I think this XEP should include
> >> a MAM extension for accessing the unexpunged message for
> >> administrative users.
> >>
> >> The risk here is that an abusive and/or spam message is sent to a
> >> chatroom, that is then (immediately) removed from the archive. We want
> >> administrators to be able to see the original message, I think.
> >>
> >> It could be that administrators *always* see the original message and
> >> the <retracted/> indicator.
> >>
> >> 2) Tombstone Privacy
> >>
> >> At the opposite end of the scale, I wonder if by requiring the
> >> original JID in the tombstone, we expose more data than we need to. If
> >> the administrator can see the full data (as above), then i think we
> >> can safely remove more data from the retraction tombstone.
> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Standards mailing list
> >> > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> >> > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Standards mailing list
> >> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> >> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards mailing list
> > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to