XSF Editor Team - 2021-12-07

  1. larma

    jonas’, 0424 depends on 0422 (+ 0421 in semi-anon MUCs + it suggests 0428). Although 0001 does not explicitly forbid advancing XEPs before their dependencies, "it depends on other specifications that have yet to move forward" is mentioned as a reason to have XEPs in Deferred and having something stable depend on something experimental sounds wrong to me.

  2. jonas’

    larma, oh, good point

  3. jonas’

    yeah advancing one before the other doesn't sound too wise

  4. jonas’

    I didn't realize that :/

  5. jonas’

    I'll think about it and figure out something tomorrow or so, thanks for the hint

  6. larma

    Problem is that I don't think 0422 is ready yet...

  7. jonas’

    yeah

  8. jonas’

    me neither

  9. jonas’

    on the other hand, 424/425 are very necessary

  10. larma

    I agree we need the feature. But it being rarely implemented might also be an indicator that something is off with the specs...

  11. jonas’

    is it rarely implemented? i think it's in converse and there are CLI tools.

  12. jonas’

    and at least prosody understands it and MAM-tombstones stuff

  13. jonas’

    at least for '425, people seem to be finding sensible reasons to non-advance on list anyway

  14. mdosch

    Do you know any CLI tool besides clix which implements message retraction?

  15. jonas’

    no