XEP-0308 Version 1.1.0 (2019-05-15) states "It is expected that clients will not send message corrections to clients that do not support them, as non-supporting clients will render these as duplicate (corrected) messages"
```
10:12:47 - jubalh: Do clients actually check whether other clients support xep0308 (LMC) before sending?
10:13:13 - pep.: not poezio, and I doubt anybody does. it's the "but carbons/MAM" argument
10:13:49 - jubalh: Profanity doesnt support this yet. So I always get the message twice. One time the message, and then the corrected ones. And I think that's right. But I understood xep0308 correctly it sais a
client shouldnt sent a message with 'replace' if the client doesnt support it? I don't see why
10:14:50 - Ge0rG: jubalh: because you might also use Conversations and read the backlog from MAM on conversations
10:15:51 - jubalh: Ge0rG: sorry?
10:16:36 - Ge0rG: jubalh: when I'm sending you a message, I don't know which client you'll use to read it. So it doesn't make sense to limit the features I use
10:27:57 - jubalh: Yes. That's why I'm confused by thestatement in the XEP
10:28:13 - jubalh: "It is expected that clients will not send message corrections to clients that do not support them, as non-supporting clients will render these as duplicate (corrected) messages. "
10:28:37 - Holger: Yes, you're both saying the same thing. And yes I agree, that part of the XEP is nonsense. We have that "check whether the peer's client supports it" stuff in various XEPs that depend on
recipient's features and it never makes sense as it doesn't cope with multi-device, MAM, groupchat.
10:28:53 - jubalh: First: You don't know if he is connected with several clients. Some supporting it and some not. Second: Why not just resend the new corrected message? Then he has both messages and no
information is lost. If he only gets the first one information is lost
10:29:20 - jubalh: Okay
10:29:30 - jubalh: Then I won't implement it this way. Thanks guys!
10:29:34 - Holger: Well UX is a bit meh if the recipient doesn't support it (I'm an MCabber user and know what I'm talking about) but I see no better solution, yes.
```
So it makes more sense to just always send it. Non supporting clients will then get the message and the corrected message. So they get it "twice". Which is the right thing to do in my opinion.
_win_print() and _win_printf() sound like they are the same. But
actually they are something totally different.
I renamed _win_print() to _win_print_internal() for that reason. It's
more about actually drawing to the ncurses window.
_win_printf() calls _win_print() and also writes the text to the window
buffer. Which _win_print() didn't, it was really just the ncurses
specific things.
In some cases there is _win_print_internal() called after a
buffer_append() in those cases it might be more correct to actually call
_win_printf().
It was not done so far. But probably is better. But will mean a bit more
operations.
I'll have to check this later.
So far the correction is sent. But the UI in Profanity itself is not
updated.
Also autocompletion for `/correct` with the last sent message is
missing.
I think both the window and the buffer should also be cleared in case
`/clear` is issue and persist_history is off.
Otherwise it could happen that win_redraw() redraws the whole content of
the buffer again.
So far we saved the timestamp which also had the `from`.
But we need this only to find out whether it's MUC history.
For displaying we should use the oldest delay timestamp.
Also in
61f66966dd (diff-4926fd4577a336bd3eb240f8104a5c5bL837)
a error was introduced.
Before we saved the timestamp in all cases. And only if timestamp AND
from was given we went into MUC history case.
Normal timestamp saving was not done anymore only if it also had a from
attribute.
Regards https://github.com/profanity-im/profanity/issues/1254
So far we got the first delay with a from that comes from the server.
This way we know it's MUC history.
Now we take the first time stamp we actually find. Which is likely the
one being added first. And should contain the correct time to display.
It would be nicer to actually compare the dates though.
Regards https://github.com/profanity-im/profanity/issues/1254
