Am Freitag, den 23.10.2020, 15:04 +0000 schrieb Tedd Sterr: > (This is tangential to Dave's thread, but I didn't want to hijack > that, hence a new one.) > > There may be some argument to include the url in the body anyway for > backwards compatibility, but given the XEP is over 14 years old and > has a disco feature, is that really appropriate? If something can > easily be made backwards-compatible then why not, but should we avoid > doing anything advanced because it won't work properly in Pigeon? > There is also the usual MUC issue, but things intended for one-to-one > obviously aren't guaranteed to work there, and breaking everything > just so they will work with MUC is going backwards. > I think the url in the body is a nice way to make a placeholder for inline image (if url element matches exactly url in the body it is replaced/extended with actual image). I for one was adding URL to the body as a marker for oob data in libpurle (as it does not otherwise allow linking protocol and ui legs). Limiting body only to the url - that part i never understood and couldn't fish it out from any standard - although if we now allow body to be arbitrary - that particular libpurple plugin will be broken. Which is not a big deal tbh, just a new challenge.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
