On 31 May 2017 at 10:25, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Only the latter, please. I could be persuaded into having a <text/> element or some such if people *really* want that, but I wouldn't want text-or-element anywhere if I can avoid it. > 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) I'd go MAY/SHOULD to avoid a namespace bump. Is there any reason a client shouldn't add these delay stamps too? Seems sensible particularly for messages. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
