Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:36:21 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

>Now that we agree on that, why should there be a specification for (a)
>and one that does (a)+(b)? Wouldn't it be both easier and cleaner if
>the specification that does (b) would not also have (a), if we have an
>independent specification for (a) anyway?

Well partly because I don't think we want b without a to be a thing you can 
do. But also because it's so cheap to have begin/end attributes. If the app 
also supports other ways of doing a it can consider them redundant.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)