* Tedd Sterr <teddst...@outlook.com> [2018-06-11 18:31]: > That was my original expectation too, but Kev suggested the bump would be > preferable.
I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but to me it looks like Kev said it would be better to bump this than to have a second specification, not that changing this spec needs a bump. > The protocol itself functionally supports Recent Message Correction > (RMC) without modification, but without a way to differentiate between > the two, LMC clients may silently drop RMC messages, rather than > blindly append them as new messages. I must admit I didn't saw this as a possible interpretation of LMC. The business rules indeed don't say what to do with an LMC that violates the business rules. It was just the most obvious to me to add it as a new message. I think this is another point that should be clarified in the XEP. And if there are any clients that actually delete the message if it has a violating LMC reference, we might actually need a namespace bump. Still, I hope this is not the case. Georg
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________