2017-05-30 23:48 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > On 30 May 2017 at 22:33, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> That subelement could be in the namespace of the XEP that adds it. >> I'm fairly certain that this shouldn't cause problems for any half way >> decent implementation. > > It's the less than halfway decent implementations I'm more concerned about. > > It might be worth giving it a go to see what happens.
It's worth pointing out that this will primarily affect implementations that implement SM or CSI. I think it's fair to assume that all implementations that implement those are above the 'halfway decent' threshold. I'm willing to create PRs for the following three changes if we hereby agree that we want to handle it this way. 1) Add wording to XEP-0203 that the delay element MAY contain either character data that provide a natural language description OR an element of a different namespace describing the reason for the delay. 2) Add a section to XEP-0353 that the server SHOULD add a delay element to delayed message and presence stanzas that MUST contain a <csi/> element 3) Add a section to XEP-0198 that the server SHOULD add a delay element to delayed messages and presences which MUST contain a <sm/> element (I think SHOULD wording in doesn't require a namespace bump. But I'm willing to go with MAY) cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
