Throwing another idea out there; since we're not *really* using
namespaces anyways, could we just reject elements and attributes with
colons in their names? (besides the xml: attributes, of course)
IIRC XMPP entities aren't expected to understand namespace prefixes
anyhow.
(I've never written a pa
On 23-Oct-08, at 5:40 PM, David Waite wrote:
And what for?
So that you use XML correctly, and can do productive things rather
than dealing with DoS vectors.
What about the opposite DoS vector, send a server valid, well formed
XML, well formed XMLNS, but with 1s of xmlns prefixes, p
On 23-Oct-08, at 8:05 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
I agree with the other David, that long-term we need to be able to use
standard XML tools.
Please explain why?
It makes no sense for the xmpp community to base it's protocol on what
XML works with some set of XML tools. What if their interru
In Pubsub XEP-0060, in example 113, for a request to create a node,
there is this:
However, just above, it states:
"There are two ways to create a node:
1. Create a node with default configuration for the specified
node type.
2. Create and configure a node simulta
On Thursday 23 October 2008 16:33:13 Dave Cridland wrote:
> there's some suggested RFC text as a prize.
While I'm in the camp that feels the server should sanitize the stream, I
agree with all of your proposed text. The fact is that today the majority of
servers don't sanitize, so clients absol
On 23-Oct-08, at 3:12 PM, Artur Hefczyc wrote:
Hi,
If the server had to validate XMLNS as well it would significantly
affect the server performance and memory consumption as it would need
to keep information about XMLNS for stanzas currently parsed for all
network connections.
Good point. I
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My personal view is that stream termination is not really acceptable, but
> sometimes implementors have little choice, and that the next easiest to
> implement is to essentially ignore undeclared prefixes, treating them
On 23-Oct-08, at 11:58 AM, Sergei Golovan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Curtis King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One the of the big strength of the xmpp model is that servers can
route and
do all the heavy lifting for the business rules, etc by just parse
the outer
parts of the
Let's quickly remind ourselves of the key issues. I apologise for
this message being so damn long, but for people who read all the way,
there's some suggested RFC text as a prize.
1) Protecting Implementations in the current environment:
Whether or not we want this to happen, servers can cu
I have finally found the time to review the DNS-SD and Multicast DNS
specifications on which XEP-0174 (Serverless Messaging) depends. I have
found a number of small points that could be clarified in XEP-0174 based
on this review, along with the larger issue of the TXT record format.
In addition, I
Hi,
I am the server developer so let me add something to the discussion
even if this is not a direct response to anybody post.
I think I understand the point but my opinion is if people want to push
more and more processing on the server to make live easier on the
client side then the server ins
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
> tor 2008-10-23 klockan 14:12 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>> XEP-0038 has not been touched in years. If someone wants to take over
>> authorship of that document (or wants to author a replacement), please
>> let me know.
>>
>>> Also, maybe the :jabber: smiley should be
tor 2008-10-23 klockan 14:12 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
> XEP-0038 has not been touched in years. If someone wants to take over
> authorship of that document (or wants to author a replacement), please
> let me know.
>
> > Also, maybe the :jabber: smiley should be replaced by :xmpp: ... :)
>
Marcus Lundblad wrote:
> tor 2008-10-23 klockan 16:07 +0100 skrev Kevin Smith:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I thought about creating a XEP that defines a basic set of emoticons
>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0038.html#sect-id2261834
>
tor 2008-10-23 klockan 16:07 +0100 skrev Kevin Smith:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I thought about creating a XEP that defines a basic set of emoticons
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0038.html#sect-id2261834
>
> Does define a core se
On Thu Oct 23 19:58:32 2008, Sergei Golovan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Curtis King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> One the of the big strength of the xmpp model is that servers can
route and
> do all the heavy lifting for the business rules, etc by just
parse the outer
> parts
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Curtis King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One the of the big strength of the xmpp model is that servers can route and
> do all the heavy lifting for the business rules, etc by just parse the outer
> parts of the xml stanza.
XML is such a wondeful language where y
On 21-Oct-08, at 6:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Curtis King wrote:
On 20-Oct-08, at 7:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Please understand that even if we use MUST instead of SHOULD with
respect to namespace-awareness, the existing servers are not
going to
be left behind. Newer servers a
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Oct 23 11:48:09 2008, Dirk Meyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a strange discussion with a co-worker yesterday about the
>> abuse of
>> HTTP. Well, to make a long story short:
>> http://www.tzi.de/~dmeyer/jingle-http.html
>>
>> This is a very early draft and only shows the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought about creating a XEP that defines a basic set of emoticons
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0038.html#sect-id2261834
Does define a core set of smilies, but no-one's updated the XEP recently.
/K
Every network has it's static set of smilies. Sure, this isn't very
customizable. But it solves the issue of different smilie codes. Don't
get me wrong, I don't advocate static smilie sets for networks, but I
think we could need some standarization on the smilie codes. What do
you think? I
On Thu Oct 23 11:48:09 2008, Dirk Meyer wrote:
Hi,
I had a strange discussion with a co-worker yesterday about the
abuse of
HTTP. Well, to make a long story short:
http://www.tzi.de/~dmeyer/jingle-http.html
This is a very early draft and only shows the very basic idea. What
do
you think?
Hi,
I had a strange discussion with a co-worker yesterday about the abuse of
HTTP. Well, to make a long story short:
http://www.tzi.de/~dmeyer/jingle-http.html
This is a very early draft and only shows the very basic idea. What do
you think? IMHO it could be useful.
Dirk
--
When nothing can p
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think that's a spec bug:
>
> s/available/connected/
I think so. For me it makes more sense if in points 1 & 3 of paragrah
11 we use "connected" (after that I can start filing tickets across
the different server imp
24 matches
Mail list logo
