01.06.2020, 14:31, "Andrew Nenakhov" :пн, 1 июн. 2020 г. в 16:02, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru>: That's nice, that this XEP wasn't advanced yet. This encourages me to fore work on XEP-0394: Message Markup, which I beleive is much better and has more potential, than
Hello! 01.06.2020, 01:53, "Tedd Sterr" : 4c) Advance XEP-0393 (Message Styling) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.htmlDave quite likes this, but is aware that many people don't.Jonas has a multitude of concerns: community recommendations for an explicit opt-in switch; no way to replace this w
Hello! 12.05.2020, 22:36, "Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor)" :This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments onXEP-0393.Title: Message StylingAbstract:This specification defines a formatted text syntax for use in instantmessages with simple text styling.URL: https://xmpp
The only thing about it which makes me feel bad is using Emoji.Using User Mood element instead sounds much better for me.29.07.2019, 15:32, "Georg Lukas" :* Tedd Sterr [2019-07-29 03:16]: Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Reactions - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/reaction
Hello! 23.03.2018, 02:28, "Emmanuel Gil Peyrot" :Hi,On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:52AM +0300, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:I don't see any XEP which describes of full procedure of file transferusing OOB.But [1]XEP-0095: Stream Initiation has [2]mention of using OOB as stream
Hello! 21.03.2018, 14:32, "Christian Schudt" :Maybe you are right. It was just a guess, because someone asked for the purpose of 0066.Because the uploaded file is persistent (at least for some time), I concluded that the purpose is for offline file transfer.Maybe the intention was to use jabber:iq:
Hello, Jonas! 21.03.2018, 12:25, "Jonas Wielicki" : Maybe. It was originally my idea: I just can't figure out how client, which supors XEP-0394 only and knows nothing about XP-0393 may understand which parts of styled text fragment to remove?It’s going to be written down in XEP-0394. As mentioned,
Hello, Jonas! 19.03.2018, 10:51, "Jonas Wielicki" :A client can use 394 without support 393 just fine. I don’t see where you gotthis notion from, I guess my initial mail on this was unclear.Maybe. It was originally my idea: I just can't figure out how client, which supors XEP-0394 only and knows no
Hello! 19.03.2018, 11:01, "Jonas Wielicki" :On Freitag, 16. März 2018 12:11:31 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Yes. CSS is really a hard part. But we don't need full support of CSS for IM message styling. Maybe it's better to simplify XEP by specifying a small subset of C
Hello! 16.03.2018, 12:18, "Jonas Wielicki" :So, believe me that I can understand your frustration. In the discussion lastoctober (you’ll find it in the archives there, or see [0]), I was on the "noway we’re going to deprecate XHTML-IM in favour of a hack like '393" side,too. I have been convinced b
Hello! 16.03.2018, 11:31, "Ненахов Андрей" :btw, I'm new here, what were the reasons for deprecating XEP-0071 ?It's a new tradition here: deprecate XEP not because it is bad, but because there is a lot of bad implementations around.And a lot of bad implementations of XHTML-IM just because using XHT
Hello! 15.03.2018, 18:30, "Ненахов Андрей" :Using markdown for text formatting is a bad idea. Markdown is used as a simple means to give a semi-rich text formating where complex WISIWYG editors can't be used. Like, webpage contents editing in many CMSs. However, user always knows that if he styles
Hello! 15.03.2018, 17:40, "Sam Whited" :Custom smileys should probably be its own XEP, but I agree we should make something for that at some point.Attatching images is better handled by XEP-0066 and does not need to be a part of a message formatting spec. It's likely that even if you don't support
Hello! 15.03.2018, 17:40, "Sam Whited" :On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, at 02:22, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: 1. Embedding pics into messages: ~80%. Pics are used to display memes, as custom smilies, as parts congratulation cards, as small parts of screenshots to explain something and so
15.03.2018, 16:31, "Jonas Wielicki" :Okay, so since I’m not going to get around to updating '394 this month andthere’s considerable interest, I’ll write down what I have in mind:* Emphasis, Strong emphasis, inline-preformatted (code)* Enumerations* Itemized lists* Headings (two or three levels)*
Hello! 15.03.2018, 13:33, "W. Martin Borgert" :On 2018-03-15 10:22, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: I don't want to discuss XEP-0393, 'cause the whole idea of using LML in IM sounds bad. Flaws if it is obvious, so it's needless to mention them again.I disagree. Yes it is ugly,
Hello!The problem of XEP-0393 is that markup mixed with plain text and it's hard to purge it from it.With XEP-0393 client MUST support XEP-0393 to get plain text without formatting. So using XEP-0393 with XEP-0394 together is useless:Client which supports XEP-0394 only will display formatted text w
Hello! Powerful XEP-0071, implemented in many clients is deprecated now.I guess, It's time to think about substitution it with another one. As I mentioned before, there is no XEP, which can substitute it right now.We have XEP-0393 and XEP-0394, whch potentially can provide functionality of XEP-0071
14.03.2018, 20:30, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0122 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has XEP-0122 implemented? Pleas
14.03.2018, 20:30, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0092 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has XEP-0092 implemented? Pleas
93. From: Standards <standards-boun...@xmpp.org> on behalf of Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com>Sent: 08 March 2018 16:35To: standards@xmpp.orgSubject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:26, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:> Yes, maybe. It was just an example.In
Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:24, "Sam Whited" :On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:18, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: For example we may rename XEP-0393 to "Markdown" 'cause its syntax somewhat similar to Markdown[1] language.That seems even more confusing than the other suggestion, because we
Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:20, "Dave Cridland" :On 8 March 2018 at 16:18, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote: The XEPs are not so widely implemented for the moment to care much about it.Actually, I think XEP-0393 has several implementations in widelydeployed clients.Yeah, s
Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:03, "Sam Whited" :On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:01, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: I think "Markup" more suits for XEP-0393 and "Styling" for XEP-0394.I guess, we should think about renaming those XEPs to make their names less confusing.I'm not agai
Hello! Discussing XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 I mixed them up a few times. That's because their names are really confusing. I think "Markup" more suits for XEP-0393 and "Styling" for XEP-0394.I guess, we should think about renaming those XEPs to make their names less confusing. With my best regards,Konst
Hello! 08.03.2018, 14:15, "Jonas Wielicki" :On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:38:55 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net>: The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based on these facts. The previous Counc
Hello! 07.03.2018, 22:18, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0048 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has XEP-0048 implemented
Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:58, "Goffi" :Le mercredi 7 mars 2018, 19:21:45 CET Kozlov Konstantin a écrit : Thank you for your reply. Yes, I know about those two. As for XEP-0394, I feel so bad the XEP idea, so I don't even want to discuss the XEP itself.Out of curiousity, what do you
Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" :The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based onthese facts. The previous Council decided to ensure there werealternates for XHTML-IM use-cases instead of deprecating.Deprecating is not a serious problem. The probleb is that they are obsol
Hello! 08.03.2018, 10:52, "Jonas Wielicki" :In contrast to XML, XHTML-IM is a custom thing which needs to be re-implemented in ~every client. Well-known XML libraries exist for mostlanguages (even if they only FFI to libxml2 or libexpat).According to my experience, building a XHTML processor using
Hello! 07.03.2018, 22:18, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0066 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has XEP-0066 implemented
Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:19, "Guus der Kinderen" :Primarily due to security concerns. There's a lot of discussion available in the mail archive. This is a good place to start: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-October/033546.html Thank you! I just read the message. I never thought that
Hello! 07.03.2018, 21:20, "Jonas Wielicki" :As for an replacement, it depends on your use-case. There’s [XEP-0393](Message Styling) which should cover many IM use-cases. I started to work on[XEP-0394] (Message Markup) which intends to do a bit more, with a moreflexible approach. Note that I intend
Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:18, "Jonas Wielicki" :On 7 March 2018 17:13:26 CET, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote:___Standards mailing listInfo: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standardsUnsubscribe: st
Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:55, "Sam Whited" :On Wed, Mar 7, 2018, at 10:13, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Yes, this XEP has its disadvantages, but almos all of modern clients do implement it and there is no XEP right now, which can substitute it.TL;DR — almost all of modern clients that im
I wonder, why this one was obsoleted?Yes, this XEP has its disadvantages, but almos all of modern clients do implement it and there is no XEP right now, which can substitute it. 28.02.2018, 21:24, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :Version 1.5.3 of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) has been released.Abstract:This sp
24.11.2017, 18:36, "Matthew Wild" :On 19 November 2017 at 16:54, Konstantin Kozlov wrote: The main problem I see so far is inability to determine for which dates message archive is available without reading the whole archive. Author of Vacuum IM (which is an upstream of my clie
Styling. Looks like I've got something mixed up.20.11.2017, 21:28, "Evgeny Khramtsov" :Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:34:52 +0500Konstantin Kozlov wrote: It's too bad you didn't use your veto against that awful proto.Which proto do you mean?___Sta
I was talking about "Styling" only. "Markup" is an interesting thing, but I think it's too weak right now. At least image embedding needs to be added to make it possible to replace XEP-0071 with it.20.11.2017, 19:58, "Dave Cridland" :On 20 November 2017 at 16:34, Konstantin Kozlov
It's a nice idea to recommend experimental XEP's.16.11.2017, 11:45, "Evgeny Khramtsov" :Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:42:58 +0300Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Bad thing is that developers of new clents don't know which XEP to implement. XEP-0136 (which is deprecated) or XEP-0313 (which is still
Bad thing is that developers of new clents don't know which XEP to implement.XEP-0136 (which is deprecated) or XEP-0313 (which is still experimental and may be deferred, retracted and so on).16.11.2017, 11:12, "Dave Cridland" :On 16 Nov 2017 7:43 am, "Kozlov Konstanti
Too bad...XEP-0313 is still experimental and XEP-0136 is deprecated already.16.11.2017, 00:25, "Sam Whited" :Hi all,This email is to let you know that XEP-0136: Message Archiving [1] hasbeen moved to a stats of Deprecated per a vote of the Council. The newversion will be published and live on the w
That's nice!This XEP is still too raw.15.11.2017, 19:58, "Sam Whited" :Given the feedback on this thread, the council voted today NOT toadvance XEP-0313 to draft.The XEP will return to experimental until some of the feedback isaddressed.—SamOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 12:38, Jonas Wielicki wrote: This
Sounds reassuring. I guess I'll try to join the Council next time.15.11.2017, 10:49, "Jonas Wielicki" :On Mittwoch, 15. November 2017 10:32:29 CET Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: 1) no matter what arguments you bring if a Council member wants it, it will be merged making all XSF discussions pointlessThat i
06.11.2017, 22:19, "Emmanuel Gil Peyrot" :On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:58:15AM -0600, Sam Whited wrote:People have been telling you countless times on standards@ thatembedding raw markup in the body is an extremely bad idea, with manyexamples.Markdown(-like) is NOT a plain text format, having the r
Hello, Florian!
19.06.2016, 11:33, "Florian Schmaus" :
> Thanks for your feedback. I've created a patch for this and issued a PR
> on github: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/200
>
> Feel free to use this way in the future too. :)
Thanx, I will.
With my best regards,
Hello!
Just trying to implement XEP-0167: Jingle RTP Sessions in my client software.
There's something, I can't understand.
According to 5. Negotiating a Jingle RTP Session, instances should start
exchange media just after session-accept sent and acknowledged and connectivity
established. To pl
Hello!
I found a minor typo in XEP-0167: Jingle RTP Sessions, section 5, example 2
comments. Last paragraph says:
In the following example, we imagine that the responder supports Speex at a
clockrate of 8000 but not 16000, G729, and PCMA but not PMCU. Therefore the
responder returns only two p
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to
> clarify an existing protocol?
Yes
> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and
> requirements?
Yes
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?
Yes
03.12.2012, 12:30, "Kevin Smith" :
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
>
>> 30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" :
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>>> wrote:
>>>> Looking at http://xm
30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" :
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice
>> that we have disco identities for "client/handheld" (e.g., PDA) and
>> "client/phone" (e.g., mobile phone), but I thin
Hello, Sergey!
09.10.2012, 00:59, "Sergey Dobrov" :
> On 10/09/2012 12:04 AM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
>> Well, I don't see any incompatibility with XHTML here.
> src attribute is required for img tag in XHTML:
>
>
>
>
>
Hello!
>> 2. element with "src" attribute, containing URL with special scheme
>> (eg. "smilie:"), whith path, containing properly escaped textual
>> representation of the smilie.
>
> Don't know how complicated a process of inventing a new URI schema is.
> But I actually think that we can use r
Hello, Sergey
08.10.2012, 20:40, "Sergey Dobrov" :
> Sorry for the double, please consider this message as wrong.
>
> On 10/08/2012 11:36 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>
>>> The only solution I see is adding special considerations for smilies. The
>>> smilies should be converted to some special type
Hello!
28.09.2012, 16:23, "Sergey Dobrov" :
> On 09/28/2012 06:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>>> Another bigger problem is smilies. It's not obvious when the
>>> client should render smilies and when not. I'd prefer to forbid any
>>> text-based smilies in the XHTML-IM content
>> Some of us
> On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
> > The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of
> > XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue?
> Maybe we should just choose what we want of this XEP and just re-phrase
>
Different clients have different ways to determne if message is read by the
user. For example, the client I'm developing right now has 2 absolutely
disfferent ways. So, I think message is better way to determine that
message is read by the user, than attempts to guess about it analysing chat
s
On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think the following text makes it clear, though:
> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice
> if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is
> understood to include presentation to a human user if appropriate or
58 matches
Mail list logo