On 31 May 2017 at 10:46, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31.05.2017 11:25, Daniel Gultsch 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. > > I think a cleaner approach would be to extend <delay/> with an optional > <reason/> element, which has an attribute whose value is defined by an > registry established in xep203. > > There are multiple namespaces of SM, CSI and potentially other existing > and future delay causing XEPs. Having the indirection via an registry > avoids the confusion and complexity when processing <delay/> elements. >
This seems reasonable. >> 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'd made it entirely optional though recommended. > How about "MAY", and "New implementations are encouraged" or something similar? "optional" and "recommended" are both defined keywords in RFC 2119, and despite using them in a non-capitalised manner, I'd rather avoid using both in the same sentence... > - Florian > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
