On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 5. Both and in a single message
>>>
>>> "(A message with a and a is a legitimate message,
>>> but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)"
>>>
>>> I object to th
On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> 5. Both and in a single message
>>
>> "(A message with a and a is a legitimate message,
>> but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)"
>>
>> I object to this. It complicates subject handling. I believe much
>> existing
Waqas, thanks for the review. Comments inline. I will push out an
updated version sometime this week, once we settle a few of these issues.
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Mul
On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
>>> On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>
> No, but maybe adding some muc-features
On 9/24/11 12:14 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> I think it would be better to say "this room has moved". There is
> mention of something like this in the section on destroying rooms[1],
> but it's not mentioned how you should inform someone joining after the
> room has been destroyed about the new locati
After last week's XMPP Council meeting, a few folks had a discussion
about MUC status codes (XEP-0306)...
http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/110921/#16:22:29
Ralph Meijer's point was that it would be good to use the same kind of
approach we followed for core stanza errors. So inste
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:14 AM
Subject: Minutes 20110921
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council meeting 20110921.
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/110921/
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Kev present, Ralph absent (arrived after m
