On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:16, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinde...@gmail.com> 
>> 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: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to