Closed tmolitor-stud-tu closed 1 year ago
This requirement would need to go into XEP-0166, no?
This requirement would need to go into XEP-0166, no?
No, why should it? as long as the id requirements of 0166 and 0353 do not contradict each other having stricter requirements in 0353 is just fine.
@fippo @stpeter Is this ok to be merged in its current state?
LGTM.
@fippo this is the id
on the propose element, so it seems appropriate to specify it here (although of course we could update XEP-0166, too).
I get that but it still introduces normative requirements on something defined in a different spec which is typically a bad idea in terms of procedure. I'll leave it to the council to decide whether that needs to be addressed so +0
This has only a patch version bump, which is reserved for editorial changes, but this is a change to normative language.
@Kev ah sorry, I did not know this. I'll fix this later today.
That'll make life easier for the Editors, thanks. Otherwise I'll change it myself when merging.
@Kev done
Ta muchly.
I think explicit is better than implicit, hence this PR.
Since v0.4 of this XEP isn't implemented by any client yet (to my knowledge) and because the XEP is still experimental, I think we can do this update without bumping the namespace. What do you thing @fippo @stpeter ?