On Aug 9, 2007, at 10:01 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
There's an even bigger one: server connections can only send
stanzas in one
direction. Although that's more of a protocol thing than a schema
thing, if
you want to get picky. :)
This is a good enough reason for me, which is why I like ja
On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hm, and what is about http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html ?
That would still be useful to store non-autmatically-joined MUCs I
guess?
Also that XEP offers also a way to auto-join MUCs.
The more we talked about this around the office,
On Thursday 09 August 2007 8:03 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Hi Matthias! :)
>
> Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> > Hi Peter!
> >
> > Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
> >> I don't have a strong preference really. A component feels a bit more
> >> like a client because it is a local connection, plus c2s connect
Hi Matthias! :)
Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Hi Peter!
>
> Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
>> I don't have a strong preference really. A component feels a bit more
>> like a client because it is a local connection, plus c2s connections are
>> simpler than s2s connections. Let's pick one and be done with i
Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Le jeudi 9 août 2007, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
>> Olivier Goffart wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 8 août 2007, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol extension for get
Hi Peter!
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
I don't have a strong preference really. A component feels a bit more
like a client because it is a local connection, plus c2s connections are
simpler than s2s connections. Let's pick one and be done with it. :)
The reason why I for the most part suggest u
Le jeudi 9 août 2007, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Le mercredi 8 août 2007, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
> >> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
> >>
> >> Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol extension for getting
> >> the attention of
2007/8/10, Thiago Camargo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> UDP Relays are just simple UDP routers.
> So you can bind Ports and IPs to the clients from your XMPP servers.
> Clients don't need to negotiate directly with Relay Servers(TURN for
> instance).
> XMPP Servers can negotiate and allocate the tunnel
Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Le mercredi 8 août 2007, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
>> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
>>
>> Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol extension for getting the
>> attention of another user.
>>
>> Changelog: Initial published version. (ps
Le mercredi 8 août 2007, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
>
> Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol extension for getting the
> attention of another user.
>
> Changelog: Initial published version. (psa)
>
> Diff: N/A
>
> URL: http:
Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>>> This message looks like but is better because the
>>> recipient may receive result in case of accepted attention or error in
>>> case of ignored one. The ability of getting a response eve
On 8/10/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >
> > This message looks like but is better because the
> > recipient may receive result in case of accepted attention or error in
> > case of ignored one. The ability of getting a response even makes
> > disco#inf
On 8/10/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone poked me offlist about an oversight in our specs: XEP-0118 (User
> Tune) includes a way to stop sending tune updates, but there is no such
> mechanism in XEP-0107 (User Mood), XEP-0108 (User Activity), etc. This
> seems like a helpf
Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On 8/9/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>>> On 8/9/07, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
>>> I'd like to comment this version little bit:
>>>
>>> 1) Headline
Someone poked me offlist about an oversight in our specs: XEP-0118 (User
Tune) includes a way to stop sending tune updates, but there is no such
mechanism in XEP-0107 (User Mood), XEP-0108 (User Activity), etc. This
seems like a helpful feature and something that we forgot to add to the
mood/activi
On 8/9/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sergei Golovan wrote:
> > On 8/9/07, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
> >
> > I'd like to comment this version little bit:
> >
> > 1) Headline messages are not "nor
Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On 8/9/07, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
>
> I'd like to comment this version little bit:
>
> 1) Headline messages are not "normal messages which aren't to be
> stored offline". They serve anothe
On 8/9/07, Jakob Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday August 9 2007, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> > 3) (Theoretical question) If we look at client capabilities XEP (115)
> > we may see that it reaches it's purpose if a features list isn't
> > changed (since the last sent presence a
Hi,
On Thursday August 9 2007, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> 3) (Theoretical question) If we look at client capabilities XEP (115)
> we may see that it reaches it's purpose if a features list isn't
> changed (since the last sent presence at least) and is the same for
> all members in the user's roster.
On 8/9/07, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 0.1 of XEP-0224 (Attention) has been released.
I'd like to comment this version little bit:
1) Headline messages are not "normal messages which aren't to be
stored offline". They serve another goal (see section 2.1.1 of RFC
39
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ian Paterson wrote:
>> XEP-0100 "Gateway Interaction" doesn't, AFAICT, explain whether the
>> username supplied at registration should be the "Legacy Service
>> username" or the "Jabber username". [The difference between these
>> usernames (typically escaping) is explaine
Hi Peter,
Please note that the submitted specs are based on what have been
shipping for 2+ years now - so it is possible that subsequent xep's have
come out with different or better idioms - we can definitely change for
the better if it is consistent with the rest of the specs.
I have res
UDP Relays are just simple UDP routers.
So you can bind Ports and IPs to the clients from your XMPP servers.
Clients don't need to negotiate directly with Relay Servers(TURN for instance).
XMPP Servers can negotiate and allocate the tunnel to be used by the client.
Check these drafts:
http://www.
Ian Paterson wrote:
> XEP-0100 "Gateway Interaction" doesn't, AFAICT, explain whether the
> username supplied at registration should be the "Legacy Service
> username" or the "Jabber username". [The difference between these
> usernames (typically escaping) is explained in section 6.2 (User
> Addres
Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> At the recent XMPP devcon, I talked a bit with Thiago Camargo about NAT
>> traversal and media relays. There are really two separate issues here:
>>
>> 1. Finding and using STUN servers for NAT traversal. This is discussed
>> in XEP-0215.
>>
Magnus Henoch wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Why does this document specify an XML namespace? It doesn't seem
>> necessary to namespace the content.
>
> Indeed, not for its own sake; I was thinking about external tools that
> might want to identify the file, or embed
XEP-0100 "Gateway Interaction" doesn't, AFAICT, explain whether the
username supplied at registration should be the "Legacy Service
username" or the "Jabber username". [The difference between these
usernames (typically escaping) is explained in section 6.2 (User
Addressing).]
Can anyone pleas
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> Dnia 08-08-2007, śro o godzinie 15:11 -0700, Justin Karneges napisał(a):
>> I vote not repeating this mistake. This means
>> no 'jabber:component' or such. The choice should be between
>> 'jabber:client'
>> and 'jabber:server' for the namespace. Use a real attribute or
>
On 3 Aug 2007, at 10:10, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hm, and what is about http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html
Some people don't like 48, but I don't really know why (apart from it
depending on iq:private, which'll be upgraded one of these days). To
me muc rooms seem substantially differe
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
At the recent XMPP devcon, I talked a bit with Thiago Camargo about NAT
traversal and media relays. There are really two separate issues here:
1. Finding and using STUN servers for NAT traversal. This is discussed
in XEP-0215.
New STUNbis doesn't define "STUN servers
30 matches
Mail list logo
