On 31 May 2017 at 10:46, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Ah... I totally missed that. >> >>> 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? > I think it's worth documenting. > cheers > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
