Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 14:18 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
presence from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard'
showaway/show
query xmlns='jabber:iq:last' seconds='720'/
/presence
presence from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard'
showxa/show
query xmlns='jabber:iq:last'
Am 15.10.2008 um 16:15 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Because that's what is defined in the XML schema for XEP-0012. Why
change it now that the protocol has been around for 8 years?
Yeah, but there it's query because it is an iq stanza. But in a
presence, query seems somewhat wrong to me.
--
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 16:15 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Because that's what is defined in the XML schema for XEP-0012. Why
change it now that the protocol has been around for 8 years?
Yeah, but there it's query because it is an iq stanza. But in a
presence, query
1) There is a link in 7.1.2 to
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#impl-errors which should be to
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#impl-bounce
2) The link in 8.7.4 to
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#impl-unsub doesn't lead
anywhere (and the section (by that name at
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Alban Crequy wrote:
However, if the 2 clients both implement XEP-030 Service Discovery and
XEP-0115 Entity Capabilities, they will both initiate a stream in order
to send a discovery request as soon as they appear online via DNS-SD,
without user intervention.
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
ons 2008-10-15 klockan 06:18 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
tis 2008-10-14 klockan 11:56 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
I think the natural way to send idle time would be to include a notation
when changing from available
Brendan Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:52PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
So how would you tweak the text I proposed?
I would make the paragraph for namespace well-formedness identical to
the one for plain well-formedness.
I just noticed this clause:
... but MUST NOT
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Who has implemented XEP-0012? Please note that the protocol must
implemented in at least two separate codebases.
I implemented
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
tis 2008-10-14 klockan 11:56 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
There is no way for a client to push this information as part of it's
presence. One workaround could be to issue an iq/ requesting last
info when we receive an updated presence from a
Am 15.10.2008 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
It's just an element name. It has no meaning. In the old days, we
thought that everything in IQ should be query/ and everything in
message/ should be x/ but that was just a silly convention that we
discarded years ago.
And exactly this old
Am 15.10.2008 um 18:36 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Sorry, you are wrong. It's just data markup.
query creates the assumption that this is a query. It is not.
Clearly not.
--
Jonathan
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 18:36 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Sorry, you are wrong. It's just data markup.
query creates the assumption that this is a query. It is not. Clearly
not.
So stop making assumptions and you'll be a lot better off in life/
Peter
--
Peter
Am 15.10.2008 um 18:39 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
So stop making assumptions and you'll be a lot better off in life/
This is more than leading to assumptions, IMO. We also wouldn't put
query in a presence in a new XEP, so why would we do it here? This
is more like Hey, this is query,
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 18:39 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
So stop making assumptions and you'll be a lot better off in life/
This is more than leading to assumptions, IMO. We also wouldn't put
query in a presence in a new XEP, so why would we do it here? This
is more
Am 15.10.2008 um 18:47 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Layers, dude, layers.
The query part comes from iq type='get'/, not from the payload.
Even if it comes from there, the name is wrong in this context, IMO.
We should re-use the namespace, but not this particular element name.
--
Jonathan
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
It's just an element name. It has no meaning. In the old days, we
thought that everything in IQ should be query/ and everything in
message/ should be x/ but that was just a silly convention that we
discarded years
Dirk Meyer wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Alban Crequy wrote:
However, if the 2 clients both implement XEP-030 Service Discovery and
XEP-0115 Entity Capabilities, they will both initiate a stream in order
to send a discovery request as soon as they appear online via DNS-SD,
without user
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 05:18:39 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
tis 2008-10-14 klockan 11:56 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
There is no way for a client to push this information as part of it's
presence. One workaround could be to issue an iq/
Remko Tronçon wrote:
Now due to the offline message, they BOTH think the other end doesn't
support XEP-85 and chat state notifications are never used. I already
triggered that several times in Gajim.
This particular problem is solved by *always* sending active/ in our
messages. It's not
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Remko Tronçon wrote:
But I agree that caps should be preferred over the old method.
+1
BTW, I think the old method was there for the transition from message
events (XEP-0022) to chat state notifications. So perhaps it's time to
rip that out and just talk about
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 20:09 schrieb Justin Karneges:
I don't think iq:last really tracks idle. To track idle you need the
help of
the client, but iq:last is handled by the server. At best, the value of
iq:last is the last network activity from the client. I notice on
ons 2008-10-15 klockan 06:18 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
tis 2008-10-14 klockan 11:56 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
I think the natural way to send idle time would be to include a notation
when changing from available to away, or
from
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 11:26:44 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 15.10.2008 um 20:09 schrieb Justin Karneges:
way, but one thing is true in all cases: the value is never the idle
time.
It is only the idle time when you send to the full JID. The bare JID
FYI.
Original Message
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:25:56 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XMPP Council [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Council] meeting minutes, 2008-10-15
Results of the XMPP Council meeting held 2008-10-15...
Agenda:
On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Yes, we could do that within the current XEP-0004 framework if we want
to (basically say XEP-0068 was stupid and here's a better approach).
s/stupid/a quick hack to get linuxwolf off my back/, but yeah.
Clark notation?
field
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Yes, we could do that within the current XEP-0004 framework if we want
to (basically say XEP-0068 was stupid and here's a better approach).
s/stupid/a quick hack to get linuxwolf off my back/, but yeah.
Clark
On Oct 15, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Right, that's the idea.
http://www.jclark.com/xml/xmlns.htm
By the way, I was *not* arguing that we should do this, but that we
*should have* done this. I think it's too late.
If we wanted to do something more backward-compatible:
Over on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list [1] we've been working on some edits to
XEP-0124 and XEP-0206. In case interested parties don't know about the
BOSH list, and as a further sanity check, I promised the XMPP Council in
today's meeting that I would post to this list as well.
The changes are as
28 matches
Mail list logo
