On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:48 PM Philipp Hörist <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Here my suggestions again for the XEP > > 1. State clearly in the introduction that this XEP defines a generic element > for re-use in other, not yet defined, specs. > - This justifies the generic XEP title (which otherwise wouldnt, if this > is *just* an extension for blocking) > - It takes responsibility for the generic element re-use use case, this > may be relevant if there are changes requested in the future, which have > nothing to do with the blocking use case. As currently the author could > rightfully refuse any changes that don't affect the blocking command use case. > > 2. Clearly separate the second goal of the XEP, to define one such context > where the generic element is used. > - Clear separation helps to understand the intentions and that the XEP has > two goals
The XEP ties the reporting action to blocking and states a reason for the why. I think this should remain that way. The report itself, meaning the report element itself can implicitly be used outside the XEP. Allowing this explicitly in the XEP is fine with me. cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
