* Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> [2017-07-13 18:56]: > A is the opposite of B. So every message that's not A is B by > definition. So we only need to recognize (be it by marking or by rules > defined somewhere) ephemeral messages. And yes I totally agree that > CSI should use the exact same rules.
You are right. The current idea of "bodyless messages are ephemeral" just doesn't work, therefore we ended up with explicit markers for both states. I'd love to make B explicit and only require a marker on ephemeral messages, or even have a short and conscise set of rules on how to determine them. > If a message (errors and groupchats aside) can not be delivered to > multiple resources you are either using messages wrong (should be a IQ > instead) or we should rethink Carbons in general. Maybe OTR and MUC-PMs are the only pathological cases here. Then you are right and we don't even need <no-copy/> / <private>. However, if we can imagine a nice new world of XMPP 2.0, I'd kill resource locking with fire and have messages to a bare JID get delivered to every resource, and messages to a full JID only get delivered to that single resource. Georg -- || http://op-co.de ++ GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N ++ || gpg: 0x962FD2DE || o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+ || || Ge0rG: euIRCnet || X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y? || ++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
