Re: [Standards] [XEP-0234] Jingle File Transfer, Last Call and File Sharing

> On 26. Feb 2018, at 15:44, Tedd Sterr wrote: > > I see your point now - I was looking at XEP-0329 (File Information Sharing), > where the shared files are requested using a full path; while your issue is > that XEP-0234 (Jingle File Transfer) only wants a single file

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

Hi, My votes are inline. > On 8. Nov 2017, at 17:49, JC Brand wrote: > > 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes > == > > Chat Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-11-08 > > Chair: > > * Emmanuel Gil Peyrot (Link Mauve) > > Present: > > * Sam

Re: [Standards] [Council] 2017-10-25 XSF Council Minutes

Hi all. > On 25. Oct 2017, at 17:55, JC Brand wrote: > > With 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes the council has decided to change the state > of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Deprecated Kev pointed out that XEP-0001 says: > A XEP shall not be advanced to the next stage in the approval

Re: [Standards] Phone number-based contact lookup

> On 7. Jul 2017, at 13:20, Ivan Vučica wrote: > > Has there been any discussions on how would, hypothetically, XSF standardize > lookup of contacts based on phone numbers? > > Context would be a hypothetical "modern-style" mobile IM client that bases > everything around

Re: [Standards] [Council] 2017-05-17 Council Meeting Minutes

> On 26. May 2017, at 10:17, Kevin Smith wrote: > > I don’t see any reason to do this, we’re able to publish XEP updates just > fine. According to Sam, eos can’t send emails, like the XSF Editor emails that announce XEP changes or new

Re: [Standards] Council Meeting Minutes April 5th 2017

> On 12. Apr 2017, at 13:43, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > > 4) Vote on advancing XEP-0334: Message Processing Hints > Everyone to vote on list. > Sam considers voting -1 because it includes functionality that should > probably exist as part of other XEPs. > Daniel agrees that

Re: [Standards] [Council] Council Meeting Minutes April 5th 2017

> On 12. Apr 2017, at 16:17, Sam Whited wrote: > > -1 > > I've thought about this some more, and I still don't think it makes > sense to have a "hints" XEP. In my opinion we should move towards > obsoleting this XEP. Which XEPs need changes in response to this? Do the

Re: [Standards] Standardise Colours used in XMPP clients

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 18:53, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > During the Chemnitzer Linux Tage, Georg, Daniel and I had some discussion on > the topic of how to generate "randomised" colours for use in XMPP clients. > Uses include but are not limited to: Nicknames (this is

[Standards] Improving Usability of XMPP Clients from the Bottom - Usability Considerations

Hi all, Usability of most, if not all, XMPP clients has been subpar compared to similar commercial software in the area of instant messaging and real-time communication. At FOSDEM there were some nice talks about the general topic of usability and design in the Open Source Design devroom [0].

Re: [Standards] Syntax Highlighting in XEPs

> On 28 Jan 2017, at 16:50, Sam Whited wrote: > > Currently there are several XEPs that contain examples of a round trip > between the client and the server that delineate client sent packets > and server sent packets with some text similar to this: > > ``` > Client: > >

Re: [Standards] References and XHTML-IM interoperability

> On 2 Dec 2016, at 16:07, Kevin Smith wrote: > > I don’t see why the ids need to be UUIDs (indeed, it seems actively > undesirable for them to be), but yes, referencing by id, or maybe by anchor > seems sensible. Why would it be undesirable for them to be UUIDs?

Re: [Standards] References and XHTML-IM interoperability

> On 2 Dec 2016, at 16:39, Kevin Smith wrote: > > They’re long and (as far as I can see at the moment) unnecessary when a > simple per-stanza counter would suffice - only uniqueness within a stanza is > needed, not globally, isn’t it? As far as I know, technically an

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0300 (Use of Cryptographic Hash Functions in XMPP)

> On 29 Oct 2016, at 23:37, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: > > 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?

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

> On 28 Sep 2016, at 18:38, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 10:06, Tobias M <tmarkm...@googlemail.com > <mailto:tmarkm...@googlemail.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm..

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> However, it has little discussion on why there is this restriction. While it >> certainly is a MUST for security reasons in MUC situations where different >> full JIDs are different accounts (i.e. associated to

[Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

Hi, Under 4. Business Rules XEP-0308 mentions: > A correction MUST only be allowed when both the original message and > correction are received from the same full-JID. However, it has little discussion on why there is this restriction. While it certainly is a MUST for security reasons in MUC

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management)

> On 09.03.2016, at 08:33, Michal Piotrowski > wrote: > > But I don't see any diffs in the examples (only spec version and last > update date). Or at lest they are not highlighted (for me). Right. That’s a bug in our custom diff tool, needs to be fixed.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle ICE Transport Method

> On 30.12.2015, at 22:48, Lance Stout wrote: > > The prose has the original but the example shows > . > > > Aside from that nit, I'm +1 on publishing this version. Same goes for me. Also +1 on publishing. Cheers, Tobias

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

> On 29.09.2015, at 10:10, Evgeny Khramtsov > wrote: > >> >> File transfer, on the other hand, could very usefully be done via >> protocol translation. Converting SI to Jingle and back again - or >> even terminating Jingle in the server and

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

> On 29.09.2015, at 10:10, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > >> >> File transfer, on the other hand, could very usefully be done via >> protocol translation. Converting SI to Jingle and back again - or >> even terminating Jingle in the server and translating to HTTP - >> really