On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:16, Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> I agree with all of this, but believe these are distinct operations that >> deserve distinct protocol. >> > Why, when the use case, business rules and security considerations are pretty > much the same (or perhaps: should be pretty much the same)? Wouldn't it be > enough to perhaps have a distinct operation identifier in the same protocol?
I don’t see a difference between "different protocol" and “the same protocol with different identifiers”. If it’s which XEP number this goes into, I care much less than that I don’t think deletion should be an edit to zero length. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
