> On Feb 16, 2017, at 10:28, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/16/17 10:02 AM, Georg Lukas wrote: >> * Ruslan N. Marchenko <[email protected]> [2017-02-13 19:30]: >>>> As there was no consensus two years ago, I just added both elements to >>>> 0280 in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/382 >>> >>> Thanks for clarification, but then still, why two? if <private/> is still >>> required to avoid bump, why not to stick to that? Especially if, as it was >>> pointed out in referenced thread - they have different semantic, but XEP >>> expects them to provide same outcome within specification/implementation. >> >> As I wrote earlier, the discussion did not lead to a consensus. Adding >> both was an attempt to get it moving again, or at least to create a >> state with the widest possible compatibility. >> >> My personal stance would be: discard <private/>, reference 334, be done >> with it. However, that would probably require a namespace bump. > > Agreed that we need to get off the fence about it. :-) > > Is Georg's proposal something we can't live with? > > Peter
About the only argument I'm aware of for keeping it is existing implementations. If the namespace version bumps, that kind of "solves" that problem. FWIW, I'm in favor of dropping <private/> for -334. -- - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LM55L >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
