Re: [Standards] Why "ask=subscribe" rather than "subscription=None + Pending Out" ?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 9/10/10 11:34 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> Oh no, I just ask the reason for it. Perhaps I missed something in the specs >> :) > There is no reason. :) > > You're asking about very early decisions made in the Jabber community. > We don't always have documentation for those, but you could review some > of the list archives from 1999: > > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/ > > The whole scheme of states like "None + Pending Out" was a later attempt > at describing the way things were. Here's why, if memory serves me correctly the primary reason for some of the ambiguity? Presence predates the concept of info/query. It also predates the use of a namespace. Prior to Info/Query, there was tags all over the place. We actually where using namespaces, and then stubled across xmlns after the fact, and it looked pretty close to identical to the ext tags of old. :-D Anyhow, there are several cases where as the protocol evolved, the 'old fasion way' wasn't updated, due to the fact that it would cause a protocol break between old servers and new servers. Man Peter.. That even predates YOU. :-P Scary how time flies. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Jabber-RPC vs XML-RPC patent
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > That's *not* Google. Google may be many things, but to the best of my > experience they've never done a submarine patent job. > > I am not a patent lawyer. > > That said, XEP-0009 (and other XEPs, feel free to find those yourself) does > look as if it might be argued to be covered by this, by the kinds of idiots > that like to register these patents in the first place. The patent they applied for predates XML-RPC, and is generally believed to be a generally defensive patent. I'd get the word officially from Dave Winer directly, however, Dave at last specifically gives a license to implement the specification in code, located at http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec: This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to UserLand or other organizations. Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to the written XML-RPC specification, no claim of ownership is made by UserLand to the protocol it describes. Any party may, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, implement this protocol without royalty or license fee to UserLand. The limited permissions granted herein are perpetual and will not be revoked by UserLand or its successors or assigns. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote: > Btw presence probe seems too weak... as it doesn't reveal full > subscription state. By design. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] PDF versions of the specifications
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Feel free to comment and do whatever you want with the stylesheet! > Do you have any recommendations for running FOP on Debian? ;-) apt-get install fop :-D -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Binary data over XMPP
On 11/5/07, Michal 'vorner' Vaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 02:45:05PM +, Dave Cridland wrote: > > Another option would be to setup a distinct connection (and protocol) for > > routing blobs, and so send them through the server, yet not in-band. I'm > > not comfortable with this, because it means essentially duplicating all > > security information, and maintaining synchronization between two distinct > > streams. > Or make the connection blobs by default, and some blobs could contain > complete XML documents, like this: > lenght of first block > > length of second block > > length of third block > some binary data. > It is as much drastic approach as the blobs, it changes the protocol > from the very basic ground. Furthermore, you can extract the stanza and > feed it to any XML parser. Not to mention the documentation would be much easier. We could just refer to the BEEP standards instead of having to write our own. Of course, one could argue, just use BEEP at that point. :-D -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On 10/22/07, Richard Laager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > > > IIRC, the problem was that > > > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > > > > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? > > > > It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point > > of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their > > requirements, either. > > > > We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. > > If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm > > not too fussed anyway. > > Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable from the original. But then I suppose that could be taken care of by clarifying that the derivative must be clearly marked as such. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0048 (Bookmarks)
On 10/5/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Wed Oct 3 21:39:36 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0048-1.1.html > > Two comments I think need to be addressed relatively urgently: > > 1) The document says it's defining a data format to store XMPP > > conference rooms and "HTTP URLs" - is there any problem with storing > > other scheme URLs? I can't see a reason for this restriction. > That was the original use case (in fact I don't know of any jabber > clients that bookmark web pages, but there may be some). I think that it > was not intended as a generic way to store any URI, but that it was > specific to web pages. > Naturally if we want a way to store any URI, we could write a separate > spec for that. :) I would kill for a firefox plugin that stored bookmarks via XMPP so I can have the same bookmarks across any computer I'm using. :-) A good use case. Hehe. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Charron wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> France Telecom has a whole slew of patents for things that > >> personally, I disagree with. Take a gander at this page: > I think the prior art is pretty well established. BellSouth basically > patented XMPP a few years back too, but we have good records of the > early released software way back before any corporations were involved > in our little community. Unfortunately, it could be sad, as once a patent IS granted, you have a right to enforce it until it is invalidated. My understanding of the process is, those are two separate issues, which end up costing money. But I digress. I don't see it ever happening, I just find the whole affair of patents in the modern day very, very depressing. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > France Telecom has a whole slew of patents for things that > personally, I disagree with. Take a gander at this page: On a side note. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_txt=XMPP Now THAT'S just sad. Good to know, any minute now pretty much all of Jabber/XMPP could be plauged by patent lawsuits over really, REALLY poorly researched patents that where granted. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Janne Savukoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/27/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas Charron wrote: > > > On 9/27/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Thomas Charron wrote: > > >>> How a patent could be granted on basically transmitting an XPath > > >>> query string is really beyond me. > > >> Me too. > > > Here's what's interesting. The patents issues where to France Telecom. > > > The patents where issued, I believe, on exactly the same use we > > > where looking at, specifically, distributing XML document changes over > > > Jabber/XMPP. > > I haven't looked at the patent application itself. What's the number? > Heh, I just had to take a look. "Data signal for modifying a graphic > scene, corresponding method and device" :) (US 6,911,982) > Actually pretty educating, I could've never guessed that one can > generalize patents this broadly outside their original scope... They probrably did it that way intentionally. Otherwise, someone else could use a similar technique but make it unique by adding 'other ways' of say, transporting the data. France Telecom has a whole slew of patents for things that personally, I disagree with. Take a gander at this page: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_txt=France%20Telecom%20XML Or even better! http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_txt=france%20telecom%20instant%20message -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Charron wrote: > > How a patent could be granted on basically transmitting an XPath > > query string is really beyond me. > Me too. Here's what's interesting. The patents issues where to France Telecom. The patents where issued, I believe, on exactly the same use we where looking at, specifically, distributing XML document changes over Jabber/XMPP. Ironic, isn't it -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Sep 2007, at 14:30, Thomas Charron wrote: > > Interesting.. It would seem that REX is the general purpose XML > > manipulation that was talked about when the whiteboarding was rejected > > by the council because they wished a more general purpose solution... > It may be worth reading the recent discussions on this, where REX was > discussed. In short: it may be patent-encumbered, so we can't use it. > /K Bah. I looked back and I remember now. How a patent could be granted on basically transmitting an XPath query string is really beyond me. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] Shared Editing w/ Remote Events for XML
On 9/27/07, Janne Savukoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Just in case no-one had happened to consider, there's the W3C's spec > "Remote Events for XML" (http://www.w3.org/TR/rex/) which could (or > not) be used in xep 228, Shared Editing. Some parts of it seemed a > little verbose to me at first, but on another look it felt ok... > however, I wouldn't wonder if it was checked out and scrapped already. Interesting.. It would seem that REX is the general purpose XML manipulation that was talked about when the whiteboarding was rejected by the council because they wished a more general purpose solution... -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] summary: allowable characters
On 8/2/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What specifically breaks? Does it depend on which characters would be
> allowed in nodeprep2? I agree that / and @ are problematic, but the
> characters " & ' < > seem less so. But I may be missing something.
I believe this section was a left over from the original pre-rfc
specification which was attempting to fit a JID into standardized URI
notation, which specifically explains allowable characters, reserved
characters, and characters which must be escaped. See rfc 2396. The
section which deals with those characters is:
The angle-bracket "<" and ">" and double-quote (") characters are
excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in
text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded
because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI
references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because
it is used for the encoding of escaped characters.
delims = "<" | ">" | "#" | "%" | <">
I'll go jump down in a hole again. :-)
--
-- Thomas
