-
qy
should it be a thing that clients should be able to modify other clients messages, if still "last message"?
-
qy
i guess this ties into lovetox's discussion the other day
-
qy
i think they should
-
qy
even with that naive implementation, limiting it to "last message per client" seems very extraneous
-
qy
especially when with the scatter approach of implementation of features in xmpp clients, the most effective way to actually use it is to jump from client to client depending on what you want
-
pep.
qy, I think it's a thing already, and the spec had been modified in this way
-
qy
fair enough, i'm just going by gajim
-
pep.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0308.html#revision-history-v1.1.0 "Allow corrections from the bare JID unless for group chats."
-
Sam
RFC 6120 says that stanza errors can have an optional application-specific condition element, and lots of XEPs do this. It *looks* like there should always be only a single child element that's an application specific error, but it doesn't really say. Is there anything that requires multiple extra children of the <error> element?
-
Zash
Not that I ever heard of.
-
Sam
*nods* debating if I can model it as the stanza error type having a single wrapped error, and that seems sane, but I was worried some spec would require multiple things for some reason