2017-05-31 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > 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.
Well that's kinda the problem here. The delayed delivery XEP already has the MAY add a natural language description wording. And implementations seem to use that as well. > >> 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. Well some clients already do. For example when resending messages after a SM timeout. But that's a different story isn't it? Or would you like me to add wording to XEP-0198 that clients MAY add stamps when the resend something? cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
