On 12/2/16 11:32 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 2 Dec 2016, at 18:22, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/2/16 8:48 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:44, Tobias M <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2016, at 16:39, Kevin Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
They’re long and (as far as I can see at the moment) unnecessary when
a simple per-stanza counter would suffice - only uniqueness within a
stanza is needed, not globally, isn’t it?
As far as I know, technically an XML ID value needs to be unique in
the whole document, and for the XMPP case the document is the XMPP
stream/session. Using UUIDs would avoid having to go over and reassign
IDs when attaching one message to another, etc.
Oh, you meant a literal ‘id’. That’s easily avoidable just by using a
different attribute :)
IMHO this is exactly why 'id' was invented. :-)
Indeed. I'm slightly concerned with stream uniqueness guarantees that that
implies, though. What if you forward a message to someone else, or happen to
request a stanza from your archive twice or whatever?
I think we're probably already breaking that with various other cases and
stanza ids though, so if we're happy doing it there do we need to worry about
it here? (And if no, does mandating uuid make sense?)
Oh, I thought we were talking about identifying fragments within
XHTML-IM formatting, which is why I thought 'id' was right. Perhaps I am
missing context.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
