On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:15 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Version 1.0 of XEP-0239 (Binary XMPP) has been released.
>
> Abstract: This specification defines Binary XMPP, an obviously superior
> representation of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
>
G
Version 1.0 of XEP-0239 (Binary XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines Binary XMPP, an obviously superior
representation of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
Changelog: April Fools! (pm/psa/ff)
Diff: N/A
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0239.h
Version 0.1 of XEP-0238 (XMPP Protocol Flows for Inter-Domain Federation) has
been released.
Abstract: This specification provides detailed protocol flows for the
establishment of communication between domains that provide XMPP services,
including permutations for a wide variety of possible fed
Fabio Forno schrieb:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's try to RESTify it in order to have a more general solution:
What is the particular benefit here of having a RESTful interface?
An exercise, since the XEP was referencing RE
Hi
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
Do you send it all through XMPP? Is it all in small chunks as in the
examples you wrote, ore there may be also bigger chunks of data? I'm
asking because I think that everybody here would like to know more
about real life examples of binary data transfer through XMPP
Version 0.3 of XEP-0235 (Authorization Tokens) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP extension for generating,
requesting, and using authorization tokens, which can be used to join
Multi-User Chat rooms, subscribe to Publish-Subscribe nodes, and even register
XMPP acco
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?
>
> On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> > I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful
> >
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The current situation is a mess. While XEP-198 has a high XEP number, the
> > concept is many years old, and when it was first introduced there was
> little
> > interest and the council rejected the proposal
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Justin Karneges
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current situation is a mess. While XEP-198 has a high XEP number, the
> concept is many years old, and when it was first introduced there was little
> interest and the council rejected the proposal. It didn't see
Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>> I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful
>> in situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived
>> TCP connection to an XMPP server.
>
> Sure, but we don't
On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful
> in situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived
> TCP connection to an XMPP server.
Sure, but we don't need HTTP for that. I think BO
I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful in
situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived TCP
connection to an XMPP server.
Also, BOSH uses TCP in most scenarios so we need to be careful when discussing
"switching between BOSH and TCP
On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Fabio Forno wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I have nothing very strong against Data Forms. My point was that,
for
clients that use XPath to parse the known parts of the stanza (and
transparently ignore anything t
Hi,
On Mar 30, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Fabio Forno wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Egon Willighagen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, let me say that asynchronous RPC support in XMPP is very
interesting for scientific workflow environments. This proposal
addresses two problems which are imp
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Let's try to RESTify it in order to have a more general solution:
>
> What is the particular benefit here of having a RESTful interface?
An exercise, since the XEP was referencing REST ;)
Jokes apart, REST is
Hello
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:53:54PM -0700, anders conbere wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Justin Karneges
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 March 2008 7:34 pm, anders conbere wrote:
> > > However in XMPP our roster grouping are still relegated to binning or
> > > boxin
Dnia 2008-03-30, nie o godzinie 20:53 -0700, anders conbere pisze:
> Right now I'm struggling to find an number of
> clients that let me keep users in multiple groups, or at least give
> me ui to group in a tagging like behavior.
Gajim does support contacts in multiple groups for the very long ti
17 matches
Mail list logo
