(lots of snipping going on, comment inline) On Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2019 17:49:20 CET Kevin Smith wrote: > On 12 Dec 2019, at 15:08, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 12:11, Marvin W <x...@larma.de > > <mailto:x...@larma.de>> wrote: I think the question this comes down to > > is, what we want to build using fastenings. I don't want reactions to > > reactions, but if we allow some sort of "comment" as a Fastening, then we > > should also allow reactions to such comments. > > > > > > Interesting - from a syntactic viewpoint, you're absolutely right. But I > > think you're entirely wrong from a protocol behaviour standpoint. So I > > wonder if there's a distinction to be made between various kinds of > > relationship: > > > > * […] > > > > * […] > > > > * Messages where the content relates to another. Comments, threading, > > replies, etc are all closely related to another message, but they're > > clearly a message in their own right. A degradation here might involve > > losing the relationship rather than the message. > > > > I think Fastenings really only cover the first - MAM would here provide a > > summary view of any fastenings. MAM doesn't urgently need to support the > > last case at all. The middle case is somewhat harder - we might want to > > have MAM aware of these but it would need to collate these in full - and > > perhaps it even provides a unified view of a message and its edits etc? > > > > As a thought experiment, it'd be interesting to ask: > > > > 1) Are there any other "buckets" of message relationship types? > > > > 2) What existing relationships fit into what types? > > > > 3) What typical behaviours do we want to see (and thus support) on the > > clients? > > […] > > 3) summary=‘urn:xmpp:fastening:none:0': <xmpp:fastening:none:0':> > Where the new message is a new message in its own right, but that has some > sort of link to a previous one. e.g. Comments (I’m not convinced that this > is the right way to be doing comments, but if we did, like this). These can > have their own fastenings. ‘Messages where the content relates to another’ > from Dave’s list.
The third case deviates a lot from the original intent of Fastening (e.g. by allowing recursion) and covers cases for which we’re very far from having proper UX. I suggest to omit this use case from fastening if you ever get to the point where it would complicate matters (e.g. business rules w.r.t. recursive fastenings). 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: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
