On Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2017 10:35:46 CEST Dave Cridland wrote: > On 31 May 2017 at 10:25, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I would like to mention that adding a SHOULD was reason enough to reject changes to MUC (as it would require a namespace bump noone wanted) a few months back. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
