bug#51342: 29.0.50; remove non-CAPs from rcirc capability list

[Philip Kaludercic]

(Sorry that it took me a while to respond)

"J.P." <jp@neverwas.me> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> What confuses me is how standard-replies doesn't have to be requested.
>> message-ids is clear, because they rely on message-tags and if a that is
>> provided, sending message IDs even if they were not requested wouldn't
>> pose any issues.  The thing is that standard-replies introduces new
>> types, that the client must be able to parse.  Just sending them to any
>> non IRCv3-capable client would presumable confuse it.  From reading the
>> spec, I don't immediately see that it says the capability should be
>> requested.  Could you explain this?
>
> Standard replies are quite mysterious. From what I can gather:
>
>   - Future extensions are to favor this form of reply whenever possible.
>   - These *aren't* for recasting existing replies.
>
> So there's no need to explicitly request them because support is implied
> when asking for an extension that uses them, much like with message IDs.

I understand the issue, but am still hesitant. If this is vague, then it
seems better to err on the side of safety and request a message even if
the request constitutes a noop. Or are there any real downsides to being
more explicit?

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic