Hello everybody, if I may make a suggestion: I agree with both positions on this:
a) A message deletion/destruction feature requested on the senders side for the receiving side is not possible to implement reliably in an open protocol/environment where the receiving client just can ignore that request. Users can therefore be mislead and wonder why that feature does not work as expected. b) As being said a general demand still exists for such a feature. On the one hand we just have users who will compare XMPP programs with other solutions and will probably always keep asking for this. On the other hand there are certain environments where the users really have a use (and perhaps need) for such a feature, see Brian Cully's answer for example. So why not try to accommodate both realitys and define a feature which is called "Invalidation of Messages" or similar instead of "Destructible Messages". The goal of this feature should be to mark messages in a way, that the client somehow can mark the message as "not being relevant anymore" or something like that. So it could still be displayed but grayed out for example telling the receiver that the message can be ignored. Additionally there could then be added an attribute "deletionrequest" which can be set for clients which really want to have destructible messages like Signal does. This is of course not perfect either, because such a request can be ignored as well, but I think it would be a good compromise between the two extremes not defining such a feature at all (-> there will be unstandardized implementations) and defining it specificly as destructive messages feature (-> users are mislead). The term "invalidation" does not implicate that directly. Regards, Stefan Hamacher _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
