[Standards] XEP for facebook's receive messages you send from other clients ?
When you're logged in to facebook.com, you see in your browser window all messages you send to your friends, even if you send them from other clients (like Pidgin or another browser tab) Is there a XEP about having all your clients receive your own messages? If not, are you thinking of making one? I need the same functionality on my website, and thought it would be much better to implement a standard XEP than do my own solution, which will be incompatible with future XMPP clients. Thanks, - Alex
Re: [Standards] XEP for facebook's receive messages you send from other clients ?
On 12 okt. 2013, at 12:11, Alexander Karelas wrote: When you're logged in to facebook.com, you see in your browser window all messages you send to your friends, even if you send them from other clients (like Pidgin or another browser tab) Is there a XEP about having all your clients receive your own messages? If not, are you thinking of making one? I need the same functionality on my website, and thought it would be much better to implement a standard XEP than do my own solution, which will be incompatible with future XMPP clients. Thanks, - Alex http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html. Facebook does do the same on their XMPP gateway, but that's a custom extension not based on XEP 0280. Thijs signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: JSON Containers
On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 October 2013 02:22, Field Tian (fitian) fit...@cisco.com wrote: Yea, cdata is a traditional way in XML. XMPP seems not prefer CDATA. I don’t know what's the detailed reason. But I think CDATA has its advantage sometimes. Some discussion on it from 2007: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-July/016098.html The specs have never been clear on cdata. By not forbidding it (things like processing instructions are explicitly forbidden), it's implicitly allowed. But I have strong doubts that many XMPP implementations handle it properly, and nobody generates them for this reason. Maybe it's time to do some testing, and get some hard facts :) Regards, Matthew +1 to gathering data before we reopen that can of worms.
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: JSON Containers
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Field Tian (fitian) fit...@cisco.com wrote: Yea, cdata is a traditional way in XML. XMPP seems not prefer CDATA. I don’t know what's the detailed reason. But I think CDATA has its advantage sometimes. There is generally this assumption that CDATA would allow adding JSON to XML without any further escaping. This isn't true. XML 1.0 defines: CData ::= (Char* - (Char* ']]' Char*)) So JSON containing ]] inside cannot be added to XML without escaping in some way. Also, XML 1.0 defines valid characters (all characters, in PCDATA, CDATA, even escaped via entities) as: Char ::= #x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF] | [#xE000-#xFFFD] | [#x1-#x10]/* any Unicode character, excluding the surrogate blocks, FFFE, and . */ While JSON (RFC 4627) defines unescaped characters as: unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10 Which are not the same. JSON can contain unescaped characters that are not allowed in a CDATA section. So you have to escape those anyway. As a general rule, if you embed one textual language inside another, escaping is pretty much mandatory. If you see a way around it, you are probably mistaken and missing the edge cases. -- Waqas Hussain
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: JSON Containers
On 12 Oct 2013 17:17, Waqas Hussain waqa...@gmail.com wrote: As a general rule, if you embed one textual language inside another, escaping is pretty much mandatory. If you see a way around it, you are probably mistaken and missing the edge cases. MIME. Do I win a prize? Dave.
