On 13.04.2015 22:35, Christian Schudt wrote:
> Sounds good to me… except XEP-0045 still uses „MUST NOT“ for groupchat-type
> in private occupant-to-occupant messages.
> Might be inconsistent wording across the two specs.
>
> Furthermore I can understand the issue raised in your linked post [1]: I
Sounds good to me… except XEP-0045 still uses „MUST NOT“ for groupchat-type in
private occupant-to-occupant messages.
Might be inconsistent wording across the two specs.
Furthermore I can understand the issue raised in your linked post [1]: In
software an empty String and a null reference (here:
On 11.04.2015 19:39, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> * Variant 1
>
> The message type of an ack message MUST match the type of the message
> with the related receipt request, if it's of type 'groupchat'. It SHOULD
> match the type otherwise. A receiving entity MUST NOT make any
> assumptions about the me
Dear all,
We are in 2015, it will be nice to do a point about BOSH support of XMPP
server softwares.
The XEP-0124 is in 1.11 version since 2014-04-09 - 1 year.
Link : https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html
With this point, we will inform dev teams to update it.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
B
* Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) [2015-04-13 17:39]:
> Headline also has the nice property that servers doing offline SHOULD
> NOT hold on to headlines; that seems to fit the intent here. Probably
> needs some testing in the real world.
I see value in offline storing of ACKs, as it provides (visual)
On 4/11/15, 1:36 PM, "Christian Schudt" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think Variant 1 violates XEP-0045: When receiving a „request“ message from
>an occupant in a MUC room (type=groupchat), the receiver would send a receipt
>to the sender directly, not to the MUC room, by simply sending it to the
>„from“ a
On 11 April 2015 at 17:19, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> hey Ben,
>
> >> Yes. It is certainly better than doing something like uaCSTA (
>
>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-TR/TR-087.pdf)
>>> over XMPP.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll note as a preface to my below comments that CSTA is some
On 10 April 2015 at 13:01, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 9 April 2015 at 23:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> On 9 April 2015 at 16:58, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>
>>> On 09.04.2015 18:59, Ben Langfeld wrote:
>>> > Florian, my concerns with your approach are twofold:
>>> >
>>> > 1. It is complicated an
