Not sure if I get what you're trying to say. I don't think that deletion
should be an edit-to-empty, I think we're in agreement there.

When defined in distinct XEPs, I think both XEPs would be (or should be)
near copies of each-other, which would be needlessly complex.

I propose to have one XEP, that defines distinct keywords for 'correction'
and 'deletion'. A reference to the original message is desirable for a
correction for many of the same reasons as it is desirable for a deletion.

On 18 October 2016 at 11:18, Kevin Smith <> wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:16, Guus der Kinderen <>
> wrote:
> > On 18 October 2016 at 11:12, Kevin Smith <> wrote:
> >> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Guus der Kinderen <
>> 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:
> Unsubscribe:
> _______________________________________________
Standards mailing list

Reply via email to