On 9/29/11 10:50 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 28.09.2011 19:25, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/28/11 2:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indee
On 9/29/11 1:59 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
What I was implying was, most deployed software is not following the
'message-with-subject-but-no-body' rule, and is following the
'message-with-subject-is-a-subject' rule. Making the latter wrong a
Am 28.09.2011 19:25, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/28/11 2:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indeed; M-Link actually turns these off by defaultf
Am 27.09.2011 23:40, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/27/11 3:28 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 27.09.2011 15:29, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
11. Full-to-bare JID rewriting to support vCards
All(?) implementations are doing it, but it's not specified anywhere.
Should it be?
Yes, it should. Propos
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> What I was implying was, most deployed software is not following the
>> 'message-with-subject-but-no-body' rule, and is following the
>> 'message-with-subject-is-a-subject' rule. Making the latter wrong and
>> the former right is going t
On 9/28/11 8:40 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
3. Service changing room nick
I'd like some text
On 9/28/11 2:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indeed; M-Link actually turns these off by defaultfor users who are
anonymous (but has a configurabl
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>>
3. Service changing room nick
I'd like some text stating that a se
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indeed; M-Link actually turns these off by defaultfor users who are
anonymous (but has a configurable to turn them back on).
Some clients
On 9/27/11 3:28 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 27.09.2011 15:29, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
>
11. Full-to-bare JID rewriting to support vCards
All(?) implementations are doing it, but it's not specified anywhere.
Should it be?
>>>
>>> Yes, it should. Proposed text would be apprec
Am 27.09.2011 15:29, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
11. Full-to-bare JID rewriting to support vCards
All(?) implementations are doing it, but it's not specified anywhere.
Should it be?
Yes, it should. Proposed text would be appreciated.
Err... a quick attempt, probably not too good:
[Section 16.4
On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Service changing room nick
>>>
>>> I'd like some text stating that a service can change the occupant's
>>> nick at any time, including room jo
On 9/27/11 7:38 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>>
>>> I note that this feature has no disco feature defined.
>>
>> MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
>> decide whet
On 9/27/11 12:09 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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 inte
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>
>> I note that this feature has no disco feature defined.
>
> MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
> decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
>
>> Give
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>
>> 3. Service changing room nick
>>
>> I'd like some text stating that a service can change the occupant's
>> nick at any time, including room join. An occupant MUST listen for
>> status code=10
On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I think one ought to allow for extension elements in the subject change
>> message. For instance, say the subject change message is delayed at an
>> occupant's server, which hence adds a element. Hence, I think it
>> should be a child wit
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 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 which are making it obvious what
is suppor
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 which are making it obvious what
>>> is supported by the server is an option. I don't know if there is an
>>> im
Am 20.09.2011 22:06, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Since sending a private messages to administrators is always possible (even
without voice), I think there isn't really a need for this feature.
That's not true. PMs to room admins are not al
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 which are making it obvious what
is supported by the server is an option. I don't know if there is an
implemention which supports e.g. those voice-requests as describ
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 20.09.2011 00:46, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>
>> On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>
> Looking again at XE
Am 20.09.2011 00:46, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
> effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
> version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these revisions
> before the end
Am 20.09.2011 00:44, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/19/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
- Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
- Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with the
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>> On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> Looking again at XEP-0045,
>>>
>>> I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
>>> another way than a request for membership. ;)
>>>
On 9/19/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>>> - Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
>>> - Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
>>
>> Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners
>> and admins
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than a request for membership. ;)
In fact I would suggest to replace both with an unified "reques
Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
- Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
- Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners
and admins are not reserved automatically, unless an implementation
dec
Am 19.09.2011 20:49, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 8/18/11 3:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3 yea
On 8/18/11 3:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
>> effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
>> version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vo
On 8/19/11 1:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 18.08.2011 23:00, schrieb Alexander Holler:
>> Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
>>> effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
>>> v
On 8/31/11 11:41 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
> affiliation):
>
> 1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request. E.g.
> the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work with either
> ejabberd or M-Lin
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Looking again at XEP-0045,
>
> I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
> another way than a request for membership. ;)
>
> In fact I would suggest to replace both with an unified "request for
> affiliation" which should work
On 9/6/11 8:17 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:37 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than a request for membership. ;)
In fact I would suggest to replace both with an unified "request for
affiliation" which should work like the request for membership in 7.10
(with an attr
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:37 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
> >>
> >> If using a form is wanted, the c
Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
If using a form is wanted, the correct way would be that the user
requests a form for the request from the server, an
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> [..]
>
> I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
>
> If using a form is wanted, the correct way would be that the user
> requests a form for the request from the server, and sends back the
> result, which
Am 05.09.2011 13:00, schrieb Dave Cridland:
On Wed Aug 31 18:41:15 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
...
2. The service has to parse and translate every request into a form
which is then presented to moderators. The
On Wed Aug 31 18:41:15 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request.
E.g. the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work
with either ejabberd or M
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request. E.g.
the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work with either
ejabberd or M-Link ( or I did something wrong during my short tests ;)
Am 31.08.2011 01:10, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 8/23/11 6:34 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 11:23, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hello,
[..]
And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
requests a form
On 8/23/11 6:34 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 23.08.2011 11:23, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
>>> requests a form is send by the user to roo
Le 18/08/2011 15:43, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in
> an effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the
> last version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these
> revisions before the end of Septem
Am 23.08.2011 11:23, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hello,
[..]
And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
requests a form is send by the user to room, which the room then
forwards to moderators, and the moderators wi
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [..]
>
> And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
> requests a form is send by the user to room, which the room then
> forwards to moderators, and the moderators will see the form with the
> ro
Hello,
I've just seen another glitch in XEP-0045 which contributes to the
confusion of readers. In 8.2 (Kicking an occupant)
'harfl...@henryv.shakespeare.lit' is used as name for the room. I
suggest to change this at least to 'harfl...@chat.shakespeare.lit' to
express that 'harfleur' is the n
Am 18.08.2011 23:00, schrieb Alexander Holler:
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these
revisions before the end of September or
54 matches
Mail list logo
