We use Chat Markers extensively. For what it's worth, I think that it was a bad idea to remove <received/> to not replicate XEP-0184, because reading one spec is better for developers than reading two, and I'd rather revert changes back to 0.4 and deprecated 0184 instead.
Also, Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers) is rather unfortunate name. I understand the desire to share some infamy <https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1587640766696140800> with Google and their app naming practices, but protocol names should better be closer to the point. On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 16:12, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > I very much think we should stop the trend of adding other comments in > the title. This is better than a funny joke, but it's still something > that's going to show up in citations. Let's just stick "note that this > was previously known as Chat Markers" in the introduction somewhere and > call it good. > > Otherwise, this spec is useful and widely implemented, so let's go for it. > > —Sam > > On 3/25/24 15:16, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > > XEP-0333. > > > > Title: Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers) > > Abstract: > > This specification introduces a method to let the sender, or multiple > > participants in a group chat, know that a client has displayed > > messages up to a certain point. > > > > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html > > > > This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on > > 2024-04-08. > > > > Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send > > your feedback to the [email protected] discussion list: > > > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? > > > > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > > and requirements? > > > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > > why not? > > > > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? > > > > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? > > > > Your feedback is appreciated! > > _______________________________________________ > > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > Sam Whited > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
