Same what Philipp said. Most (not all) clients I know implement a
small subset of the XEP to basically annotate that the URL that is
already in the body of the message should be treated as an
'attachment' or a file download instead of a regular text URL.
This feels like an odd hack and not the intended purpose of the XEP.
However I'm not really sure what the intended purpose of this XEP is
and if we still have a use case for that purpose.

cheers
Daniel

P.S.: I was the one who pushed the usage of this hack and it currently
does an OK job for this 'annotation' use case. That doesn‘t mean this
XEP should go forward though.

2018-03-08 0:22 GMT+01:00 Philipp Hörist <phil...@hoerist.com>:
> 1. What software has XEP-0066 implemented?
>
>
>
> Gajim, only 3. communicating a uri via message
>
>
>
> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
>
> defined in XEP-0066?
>
>
>
> Not with 3., but cant comment on the other XEP Parts
>
>
>
> 3. Is the text of XEP-0066 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
>
> needed?
>
>
>
> 3. Is clear, cant comment on the rest
>
>
>
> We implemented primarily as a hack so we can mark messages that contain only
> a httpupload link, we add the uri also in the oob tag, and other Clients can
> treat this message differently, for example displaying the image, instead of
> displaying any random weblink that someone sends with a message.
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to