On 05/30/2012 05:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/28/12 1:53 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/26/2012 01:23 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
But I certainly might want to receive the last published item
On 5/28/12 1:53 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/26/2012 01:23 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
But I certainly might want to receive the last published item whenever I
log in. This too seems like a setting
On 05/26/2012 01:23 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
But I certainly might want to receive the last published item whenever I
log in. This too seems like a setting that a dedicated microblogging
service
On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/22/12 12:40 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
Well, the need to *change* it from the default to some reasonable value
implies that the default value is unreasonable. That might depend on
implementation and
Is there something planned to replace the removed Attaching file to a
post part ?
There was no clear explanation for this change.
Jaussoin Timothée
2012/5/22 Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
On 5/22/12 12:40 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 12:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On
On 05/23/2012 01:38 PM, Tim wrote:
Is there something planned to replace the removed Attaching file to a
post part ?
There was no clear explanation for this change.
There are two problems with the feature:
1) this feature is too early: we have no solutions for some very
important problems to
On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/22/12 12:40 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
Well, the need to *change* it from the default to some reasonable value
implies that the default value is unreasonable. That might depend on
implementation and deployment (e.g., if someone runs an XMPP
Considering that the 0277 implement the Atom standard, can we continue to
follow the Atom Media system (http://specs.mart.me.uk/atommedia#anchor20)
or it's better to wait for a more clean XEP for this issue ?
2012/5/23 Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org
On 05/23/2012 01:38 PM, Tim wrote:
Is
On 05/23/2012 02:31 PM, Tim wrote:
Considering that the 0277 implement the Atom standard, can we continue
to follow the Atom Media system
(http://specs.mart.me.uk/atommedia#anchor20) or it's better to wait for
a more clean XEP for this issue ?
I don't see any non-standard extensions in the
Version 0.6 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added node configuration suggestions; removed file attachments;
added rich content examples; change atom:content to atom:title anywhere in
On 5/22/12 11:56 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.6 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added node configuration suggestions; removed file attachments;
added rich content
On 05/23/2012 12:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/22/12 11:56 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.6 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added node configuration suggestions;
On 5/22/12 12:40 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 05/23/2012 12:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/22/12 11:56 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.6 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over
XMPP.
Version 0.5 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Changed the commenting Pubsub service from PEP to external. (vs)
Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0277/diff/0.4/vs/0.5
URL:
Generalize my suggestions for XEP-0277 as was asked by Neustradamus.
1. I agreed with Arc Riley that XEP-0277 should not contain 2.7.
Attaching files to a post as overhead and the reason which is slowing
down acceptance of the standard.
1.1 If attachments will be kept in the XEP it needs to
On 06/03/2011 12:01 AM, Arc Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org
mailto:bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
I agree but if file attachment already in XEP we have to specify how
client could upload it. Am I wrong?
The XEP is in experimental
I think that we should add an ability to add categories (e.g. tags) to
the posts (and/or comments). That is easy using entry:category Atom element:
category term=xmpp/
--
With best regards,
Sergey Dobrov,
XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
Other remarks about new revision of the XEP-277:
1. Moving a text of post to a content item is fine but Atom's entry
MUST contain at least one title element. I suggest to put to the
title element plain text version of content truncated to 140 chars. (I
already have it in my implementation)
2. Why
Suddenly, your mail client don't reply in the thread. :(
On 06/02/2011 05:55 AM, Valérian Saliou wrote:
Hello,
I will try to reply to your answers/suggestions ;)
1. In the microblogging XEP we wanted to define a simple way to share
some files. But I never heard of the XEP-0135, will read
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
some files. But I never heard of the XEP-0135, will read it as soon as
possible. Anyway, by looking at it quickly, it gives me some ideas about
how we could manage photo albums/file albums to extend XMPP social
On 06/02/2011 10:39 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org
mailto:bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
some files. But I never heard of the XEP-0135, will read it as soon as
possible. Anyway, by looking at it quickly, it gives me some ideas
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
I agree but if file attachment already in XEP we have to specify how
client could upload it. Am I wrong?
The XEP is in experimental status, something being in the current XEP does
not mean it must remain there.
I
Version 0.4 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added microblog informations feature, ID innacurracy fixed,
urn:xmpp:inbox support added, new commenting namespaces, first comment marker,
On 06/02/2011 12:36 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.4 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added microblog informations feature, ID innacurracy fixed,
urn:xmpp:inbox
Hello,
I will try to reply to your answers/suggestions ;)
1. In the microblogging XEP we wanted to define a simple way to share
some files. But I never heard of the XEP-0135, will read it as soon as
possible. Anyway, by looking at it quickly, it gives me some ideas about
how we could manage
Version 0.3 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Comments link link[rel=related] is now link[rel=replies] and
title is now content[type=text] or content[type=xhtml]; added geolocation
Hi,
On Tuesday 26 April 2011 13:54:51 XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.3 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Regarding comment nodes: is it expected that every set of comments for a post
or attachment has its own node? By that I mean you would not have two
Version 0.2 of XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a method for microblogging over XMPP.
Changelog: Added file attachment and commenting features; updated XML
namespaces in examples. (vs)
Diff:
28 matches
Mail list logo
