Version 0.4 of XEP-0231 (Data Element) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for including
small bits of binary data in an XML stanza.
Changelog: Generalized text regarding inclusion of parameters in type attribute
per RFC 2045; added max-age attribu
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 08:54:22 Pavel Simerda wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:59:50 -0600
>
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right. Or XEP-0191. Effectively Google Talk (and other similar
> > services) deploy a rule of "forbid communications with people not on
> > my roster" on
Sylvain Mundialco wrote:
My question was actual in the xep-0176 section 5.5 Connectivity
Checks.
The initiator and responder and behind NAT. We are not able to do get
implementation right. The responder do not get the first request same
as initiator ( illustrated by From 192.0.2.3:456
Emil Hesslow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emil Hesslow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Emil Hesslow wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing my own pubsub component and what I want to do is just to
push
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emil Hesslow wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Emil Hesslow wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing my own pubsub component and what I want to do is j
Emil Hesslow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emil Hesslow wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing my own pubsub component and what I want to do is just to push
messages to people that are online.
And when I look in XEP-0060 I found that there is a property c
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emil Hesslow wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm writing my own pubsub component and what I want to do is just to push
>> messages to people that are online.
>>
>> And when I look in XEP-0060 I found that there is a property call
Emil Hesslow wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing my own pubsub component and what I want to do is just to
push messages to people that are online.
And when I look in XEP-0060 I found that there is a property called
presence_based_delivery but I can't understand how it suppose to work.
Right now I have
vatsarv wrote:
Hi Peter, Thanks for the quick response.
The message type of 'headline' will solve my previous problem, but a
new problem has come up because of this.
I went throught the xep-0160 to see how the headline messages are
treated if the client is offline. This XEP recommends not to st
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>>
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>
>>> Olivier Goffart wrote:
It would be cool to add a way to specify a new jid, so the server could
reply with a error with the new Jid
or
Jehan wrote:
So to come back to my questions... Is it defined somewhere, in some
XEP, what happens to your subscriptions when an account is deleted? As
they are based simply on your jid, this can be insecure, so I think this
is a sensible matter...
No, we leave it up to server implementations
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Olivier Goffart wrote:
It would be cool to add a way to specify a new jid, so the server
could reply with a error with the new Jid
or even forward message to the new one.
What prevents a malicious user from setting up an account, subscribin
Jehan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;2169 Wrote:
So I say that we update XEP-0071 to no longer disallow semantic markup
(in fact there's no real way to do that in XHTML Modularization
anyway!)
and encourage experimentation to see which elements people really want
to use (I think it will be mostly
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:16:45 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO you'd get account/* from a bare JID and client/* from a full JID.
/psa
But then account/* should never send presence, no?
Right, account/* is service discovery only, not presence. I wa
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:16:45 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>> I like the part that only client/* should be interpreted as
> >>> IM-capable resources, but I don't know if that is too strict.
> >>
> >> That's probably
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:59:50 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pedro Melo wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Ovidiu Craciun wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Excerpt from:
> >> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-06.html
> >>
> >> "Section: 8.3. Gener
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I like the part that only client/* should be interpreted as
IM-capable resources, but I don't know if that is too strict.
That's probably too strict. At the least I think we'd say that the
following identities are IM-capable:
account/*
clie
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I like the part that only client/* should be interpreted as IM-capable
resources, but I don't know if that is too strict.
That's probably too strict. At the least I think we'd say that the
following identities are IM-capable:
account/*
client/*
I always thought the
Pedro Melo wrote:
On Aug 5, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Pedro Melo wrote:
On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Jul 31 17:17:40 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
Moving forward, this would allow clever clients to observe that
it wasn't a IM client capable of handli
Pavel Simerda wrote:
Hello Peter,
this is just reactions to your post, I will later summarize what I have
and include some examples so we can advance from theory to something
real.
Sounds good!
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:23:36 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(citation shortene
Maciek Niedzielski;2181 Wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >> It would be cool to add a way to specify a new jid, so the server
> >> could reply with a error with the new Jid
> >> or even forward message to the new one.
> >
> > What prevents a malicious user from se
Peter Saint-Andre;2169 Wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:40:49 +0200
> > Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> >
> >> Jehan wrote:
> >>> But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
> >> And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not
> semantics:
> >> most end use
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Olivier Goffart wrote:
It would be cool to add a way to specify a new jid, so the server
could reply with a error with the new Jid
or even forward message to the new one.
What prevents a malicious user from setting up an account, subscribing
it to every bot on the n
Le mardi 5 août 2008, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > I'm about off topic here, but since you mention this spec i'd like to add
> > my two cent.
> >
> > It would be cool to add a way to specify a new jid, so the server could
> > reply with a error with the new Jid
> > or e
24 matches
Mail list logo
