On Mon Oct 20 04:40:56 2008, Waqas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an entity SHOULD be liberal in accepting such data.
This translates to:
an entity SHOULD NOT use a namespace-validating parser (as
defined
in [XML-NAMES])
No, I
Fabio Forno wrote:
Hi everybody,
accordingly to rfc3921 connected resources are resources that have
established a binding, and they become available after sending the
first presence stanza.
Section 11.1 tells:
* Else if the JID is of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource and no
available
If I'm right, this is a fairly serious spec bug.
Are people doing this in the wild?
/K
Kevin Smith wrote:
If I'm right, this is a fairly serious spec bug.
Are people doing this in the wild?
Not sure. I'm checking with some implementers about this...
/psa
On Monday 20 October 2008 09:06:44 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
If I'm right, this is a fairly serious spec bug.
You're right, it is one TXT record, not many. I didn't notice this in the XEP
because I don't really understand that text-based DNS record notation.
Fortunately, it's doubtful anyone
Justin Karneges wrote:
On Monday 20 October 2008 09:06:44 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
If I'm right, this is a fairly serious spec bug.
You're right, it is one TXT record, not many. I didn't notice this in the
XEP
because I don't really understand that text-based DNS record notation.
If you have implemented XEP-0080, I would like to hear from you
regarding support for the error/ element in your code. Currently this
element is defined in terms of arc minutes instead of meters, and I'm
wondering if anyone's code supports these rather arcane units for
location offsets.
Thanks!
Version 0.12 of XEP-0177 (Jingle Raw UDP Transport Method) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a Jingle transport method that results in
sending media data using raw datagram sockets via the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP). This simple transport method does not provide NAT
Hi,
I've created a new XSL stylesheet to convert the XEPs from XML to PDF:
http://insitu.lri.fr/~roussel/pub/xep2pdf/fo.xsl
I've used it with fop (http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/) to convert
the xep-*.xml files. The resulting PDFs can be obtained from:
Nicolas Roussel wrote:
Hi,
I've created a new XSL stylesheet to convert the XEPs from XML to PDF:
http://insitu.lri.fr/~roussel/pub/xep2pdf/fo.xsl
I've used it with fop (http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/) to convert
the xep-*.xml files. The resulting PDFs can be obtained from:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Nicolas Roussel wrote:
The stylesheet failed on 10 XML files. In most cases, that's because of
a duplicate anchor name:
http://insitu.lri.fr/~roussel/pub/xep2pdf/major-problems.txt
I'll fix those.
Done: http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/changelog/XMPP/?cs=2415
/psa
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feel free to comment and do whatever you want with the stylesheet!
Do you have any recommendations for running FOP on Debian? ;-)
apt-get install fop
:-D
--
-- Thomas
If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec
has fixed it already)
In the last example in section 7.4, both iq/'s have a @to, though they
are not supposed to per Core spec 9.1.1 (a stanza sent from a client to
a server for handling by that server (e.g., presence sent
Thomas Charron wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feel free to comment and do whatever you want with the stylesheet!
Do you have any recommendations for running FOP on Debian? ;-)
apt-get install fop
Er yeah, I tried that:
# apt-get install
Brett Zamir wrote:
If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec
has fixed it already)
Which spec? We have an awful lot of them...
Peter
Sorry, was relying on the subject line--IM spec...
Brett
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Brett Zamir wrote:
If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec
has fixed it already)
Which spec? We have an awful lot of them...
Peter
Brett Zamir wrote:
Sorry, was relying on the subject line--IM spec...
That is, draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis?
I meant to say the copy at http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3921.html but
mistakenly pasted the text version from ietf.org. Oddly, RFC3921 is
blocked for me here in China, but only that page (I can get to it via a
proxy)!
Brett
Sorry again... Clearing the browser cache fixed it...
Brett
Waqas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you receive invalid XMLNS, however, it might have come from anywhere, and
merely been forwarded on to you. ANd there's at least three ways of handling
it.
a) Assume that undeclared prefixes are bound to
20 matches
Mail list logo
