On 11 Jun 2018, at 15:11, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 09:02, Tedd Sterr wrote: >> As long as it doesn't confuse existing implementations, hopefully >> nothing; but I suppose that's what the namespace bump is for. > > It sounded to me like this would be a new distinct namespace > older-than-previous-message corrections, a namespace bump may be more > contentious in a draft XEP.
I’m not sure that’s necessary, given that the current protocol was designed to allow exactly this. (I’m not *entirely* sure that a namespace bump is even needed at the moment, but nor am I sure it isn’t) /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
