Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0377 (Spam Reporting)
Philipp Hörist <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, >>Further the disco feature is insufficient if this will be used as a base >>spec. The disco feature should clearly state for which use case reporting >>is supported, in this case Blocking Command. >> >>So e.g. urn:xmpp:blocking:reporting:1 > > Hmm. I have no strong feeling here. Supporting both blocking and reporting > features would mean you support blocking with nested reporting. I believe > that is the current intent. Having an explicit blocking+reporting feature as > well could be fine I don't mind it but I don't know that we need it either. If you intend to support different contexts of blocking, then one would expect that the context is mentioned in the feature. Or whats your idea for a feature name for the next context, say MUC? _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]