Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
mån 2008-06-16 klockan 11:49 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre: > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/home' > type='headline'> > Why don't you answer, Herbie? > > Dude, wake up! > > > > Seems confusing to me. > > > Maybe > > that would be a bit out-of-scope for the XEP... > > > > Perhaps it would suffice if the user can add an arbitrary message to the > > attention message (using the normal means). > > Why not just use the message body? > Yes, I think using the message body straight would probably be the best way. Actually the client could format the message using XHTM-IM and so on depending on the receivers capabilities. Then a receiving client could format a containing an in a special way, f.ex. with a heading saying "Buzz!" and a different background colour, or whatever. It could even shake the window or play a sound, if the user wishes... :) //Marcus
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On 06/16/2008 11:53 AM, Marcus Lundblad wrote: >> I don't have any preferences about that, though perhaps a child >> be better in case we want to internationalize the messages (different >> message for English vs. German or whatever) -- personally that seems >> like overkill to me, but you never know what users will get excited >> about. ;-) >> > Yes, that could be one possible use-case. Though that would probably > require some set of pre-defined texts that clients know about. I don't think that would be required. It's user-specified, you can put anything there you like. But what gets shown to the receiver if the message is something like the following? Why don't you answer, Herbie? Dude, wake up! Seems confusing to me. > Maybe > that would be a bit out-of-scope for the XEP... > > Perhaps it would suffice if the user can add an arbitrary message to the > attention message (using the normal means). Why not just use the message body? > Maybe an alternative could be a "type" attribute tag. But > then the definition of what types there are is left to be defined. Maybe > that would be a bit too detailed. I think so. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
> I don't have any preferences about that, though perhaps a child > be better in case we want to internationalize the messages (different > message for English vs. German or whatever) -- personally that seems > like overkill to me, but you never know what users will get excited > about. ;-) > Yes, that could be one possible use-case. Though that would probably require some set of pre-defined texts that clients know about. Maybe that would be a bit out-of-scope for the XEP... Perhaps it would suffice if the user can add an arbitrary message to the attention message (using the normal means). Maybe an alternative could be a "type" attribute tag. But then the definition of what types there are is left to be defined. Maybe that would be a bit too detailed. //Marcus
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
mån 2008-06-16 klockan 19:12 +0200 skrev Andreas Monitzer: > > Infact, the implementation in libpurple doesn't announce support > > correctly presently. I've made a patch that fixes that. It has not yet > > been reviewed though. > > Yes, getting changes into libpurple is not that easy. The API for > implementing buzz changed in the libpurple core after I wrote that > implementation, and it took ages to get ported to the new one. > I should stress that I did not write that as a critism of the libpurple team, it's just that the main XMPP developer has not got around to look at it, and the XEP is experimental after all. //Marcus
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On Jun 16, 2008, at 19:09, Marcus Lundblad wrote: mån 2008-06-16 klockan 18:44 +0200 skrev Andreas Monitzer: On Jun 16, 2008, at 18:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. Pidgin and Adium do implement it, but changing the namespace there shouldn't be a major problem. Infact, the implementation in libpurple doesn't announce support correctly presently. I've made a patch that fixes that. It has not yet been reviewed though. Yes, getting changes into libpurple is not that easy. The API for implementing buzz changed in the libpurple core after I wrote that implementation, and it took ages to get ported to the new one. By the way, was XEP-0224 first suggested by the Adium team? Well, you could say that. I wrote it as part of my Google Summer of Code project for Adium last year, where I was working on adding features to libpurple's XMPP implementation. andy
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On 06/16/2008 11:09 AM, Marcus Lundblad wrote: > m�n 2008-06-16 klockan 18:44 +0200 skrev Andreas Monitzer: >> On Jun 16, 2008, at 18:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. >> Pidgin and Adium do implement it, but changing the namespace there >> shouldn't be a major problem. >> > Infact, the implementation in libpurple doesn't announce support > correctly presently. I've made a patch that fixes that. It has not yet > been reviewed though. > > On another thought, it would probably be possible for a client to > included a message with the attention, so that a user could define some > predefined "attention messages". One thought was that this could be a > child element of the tag. But on the other hand, a client > could format a message containing an tag in some special > manner even using the spec. as it is unmodified. I don't have any preferences about that, though perhaps a child be better in case we want to internationalize the messages (different message for English vs. German or whatever) -- personally that seems like overkill to me, but you never know what users will get excited about. ;-) > By the way, was XEP-0224 first suggested by the Adium team? IIRC, yes. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On 06/16/2008 10:44 AM, Andreas Monitzer wrote: > On Jun 16, 2008, at 18:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. > > Pidgin and Adium do implement it, but changing the namespace there > shouldn't be a major problem. Thanks for letting us know. I'll work with our friends in the SIMPLE WG to harmonize approaches if possible, and keep folks here in the loop since I know that not everyone is on the SIMPLE list. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
mån 2008-06-16 klockan 18:44 +0200 skrev Andreas Monitzer: > On Jun 16, 2008, at 18:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. > > Pidgin and Adium do implement it, but changing the namespace there > shouldn't be a major problem. > Infact, the implementation in libpurple doesn't announce support correctly presently. I've made a patch that fixes that. It has not yet been reviewed though. On another thought, it would probably be possible for a client to included a message with the attention, so that a user could define some predefined "attention messages". One thought was that this could be a child element of the tag. But on the other hand, a client could format a message containing an tag in some special manner even using the spec. as it is unmodified. By the way, was XEP-0224 first suggested by the Adium team? //Marcus > andy >
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On 06/16/2008 10:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 06/16/2008 8:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Mon Jun 16 09:07:32 2008, Gustavo wrote: >>> We have submitted a new draft specifying a method to send attention >>> requests in a SIP messaging system. Any comment, suggestion or >>> criticism will be more than welcomed. >> I note you've referenced XEP-0224. I think it'd be useful if both >> protocols actually used the same XML namespace, so I'll suggest that on >> the XMPP standards list - I think that XMPP could probably still change, >> so picking the namespace from this document may be most sensible, but >> I'm hoping people will let me know if XEP-0224 has already been widely >> implemented. > > I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. Andreas Monitzer reports that XEP-0224 has been implemented in both Pidgin (formerly Gaim) and Adium: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-June/019130.html >> I'm not entirely sold on the neccessity to be able to play tunes with >> the attention request whilst vibrating their laptop - presumably most >> useful for added effect on the low notes - and in more general terms, I >> prefer the concepts of XEP-0224, Section 6 - quite how the recipient >> should have their attention gained should be fully under the control of >> the recipient. > > +1 to that. If we go that route and don't include all the bells and whistles (and flashing lights and vibrations and whatever all else is currently in draft-garcia-simple-poke-00), then presumably we could all use the same XML schema and namespace. XEP-0224 is still experimental, so the XMPP Registrar has not yet issued a permanent namespace for that extension. However, this spec could easily be moved forward in the XSF's standards process since it's already implemented. Alternatively, we could defer to the work in the SIMPLE WG. I don't have a strong preference in that regard. However, if the SIMPLE WG proceeds with a more complex solution then folks in the XMPP community might go with a simpler solution and we could gateway the basic functionality without supporting lights and tones and such in XMPP. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On Jun 16, 2008, at 18:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. Pidgin and Adium do implement it, but changing the namespace there shouldn't be a major problem. andy
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On 06/16/2008 8:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Jun 16 09:07:32 2008, Gustavo wrote: >> We have submitted a new draft specifying a method to send attention >> requests in a SIP messaging system. Any comment, suggestion or >> criticism will be more than welcomed. > > I note you've referenced XEP-0224. I think it'd be useful if both > protocols actually used the same XML namespace, so I'll suggest that on > the XMPP standards list - I think that XMPP could probably still change, > so picking the namespace from this document may be most sensible, but > I'm hoping people will let me know if XEP-0224 has already been widely > implemented. I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet. > I'm not entirely sold on the neccessity to be able to play tunes with > the attention request whilst vibrating their laptop - presumably most > useful for added effect on the low notes - and in more general terms, I > prefer the concepts of XEP-0224, Section 6 - quite how the recipient > should have their attention gained should be fully under the control of > the recipient. +1 to that. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] [Simple] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"
On Mon Jun 16 09:07:32 2008, Gustavo wrote: We have submitted a new draft specifying a method to send attention requests in a SIP messaging system. Any comment, suggestion or criticism will be more than welcomed. I note you've referenced XEP-0224. I think it'd be useful if both protocols actually used the same XML namespace, so I'll suggest that on the XMPP standards list - I think that XMPP could probably still change, so picking the namespace from this document may be most sensible, but I'm hoping people will let me know if XEP-0224 has already been widely implemented. I'm not entirely sold on the neccessity to be able to play tunes with the attention request whilst vibrating their laptop - presumably most useful for added effect on the low notes - and in more general terms, I prefer the concepts of XEP-0224, Section 6 - quite how the recipient should have their attention gained should be fully under the control of the recipient. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
