On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name
> request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045? I think this
> feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I would li
Le mercredi 13 août 2008, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name
> request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045?
mu-conference implements it.
> I think this
> feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I
Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name
request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045? I think this
feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I would
like to remove it from XEP-0045.
Thanks!
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cry
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:31:00 -0700
Justin Karneges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 11 August 2008 14:04:22 Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:45:08 -0600
> >
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Server DOM grovelling to look for the right extension? That
> > >
On Monday 11 August 2008 12:45:08 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Justin Karneges wrote:
> > We need two new XEPs: "Temporary Presence Exchange" (for exchanging
> > caps/resource information with unknown/invisible entities),
>
> What more does that involve on top of directed presence containing caps?
S
On Monday 11 August 2008 14:04:22 Pavel Simerda wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:45:08 -0600
>
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Server DOM grovelling to look for the right extension? That doesn't
> > sound very appealing to server developers.
>
> What about:
>
> A:
I'm pretty sur
