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
gregoryhas left
jubalhhas left
gregoryhas joined
Kevhas joined
gregoryhas left
gregoryhas joined
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."
Samhas left
homebeachhas left
Matrix Traveler (bot)has left
homebeachhas joined
Matrix Traveler (bot)has joined
adxhas joined
gregoryhas left
gregoryhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
gregoryhas left
gregoryhas joined
Yagizаhas left
atomicwatchhas joined
xeckshas left
xeckshas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Samhas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
Millesimushas left
debaclehas joined
PapaTutuWawahas joined
Millesimushas joined
stuart.j.mackintoshhas left
Patigahas left
nicolahas left
nicolahas joined
stuart.j.mackintoshhas joined
stuart.j.mackintoshhas left
nicolahas left
stuart.j.mackintoshhas joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
pulkomandyhas joined
pulkomandyhas left
pulkomandyhas joined
heartyhas left
heartyhas joined
nicolahas joined
nicolahas left
nicolahas joined
techmetx11has joined
pulkomandyhas left
pulkomandyhas joined
jubalhhas joined
selurveduhas joined
PapaTutuWawahas left
pulkomandyhas left
PapaTutuWawahas joined
goffihas joined
kapadhas left
menelhas left
menelhas joined
stuart.j.mackintoshhas left
uhas left
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
uhas joined
debaclehas left
stuart.j.mackintoshhas joined
Millesimushas left
goffihas left
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
Millesimushas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
uhas left
uhas joined
menelhas left
menelhas joined
Nicocohas left
rubihas left
rubihas joined
tskhas joined
menelhas left
menelhas joined
selurveduhas left
Millesimushas left
Millesimushas joined
stuart.j.mackintoshhas left
uhas left
uhas joined
stpeterhas joined
menelhas left
uhas left
uhas joined
rubihas left
MSavoritias (fae,ve)has left
rubihas joined
rubihas left
rubihas joined
uhas left
uhas joined
menelhas joined
MSavoritias (fae,ve)has joined
PapaTutuWawahas left
uhas left
Wojtekhas joined
uhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
tskhas left
Kevhas left
stuart.j.mackintoshhas joined
Kevhas joined
heartyhas left
heartyhas joined
uhas left
uhas joined
pulkomandyhas joined
xeckshas left
xeckshas joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
larmahas left
stuart.j.mackintoshhas left
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
Beherithas left
stuart.j.mackintoshhas joined
PapaTutuWawahas joined
Patigahas joined
stpeterhas left
Beherithas joined
oshnhas left
oshnhas joined
uhas left
uhas joined
Schimon_has left
atomicwatchhas left
menelhas left
menelhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Maranda[x]has left
Maranda[x]has joined
Kevhas left
Maranda[x]has left
Maranda[x]has joined
heartyhas left
stpeterhas joined
heartyhas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
larmahas joined
stpeterhas left
Maranda[x]has left
Maranda[x]has joined
debaclehas joined
nicolahas left
Wojtekhas left
nicolahas joined
adxhas left
thomaslewishas joined
Kevhas joined
Kevhas left
thomaslewishas left
PapaTutuWawahas left
Kevhas joined
Kevhas left
adxhas joined
PapaTutuWawahas joined
jubalhhas left
Wojtekhas joined
jubalhhas joined
spiralhas left
spiralhas joined
spiralhas left
spiralhas joined
Samhas left
Mx2has left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
stpeterhas joined
Samhas joined
tskhas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
tskhas left
antranigvhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
Wojtekhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
spiralhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
Mx2has joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
nicocohas left
spiralhas joined
spiralhas left
Trunghas left
spiralhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
miruxhas left
selurveduhas joined
MSavoritias (fae,ve)has left
spiralhas left
spiralhas joined
kapadhas joined
rubihas left
rubihas joined
rubihas left
rubihas joined
rubihas left
rubihas joined
atomicwatchhas left
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.
Millesimushas left
larmahas left
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