On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jeff Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> when creating a namespace, is the preferred format "urn:xxx:yyy..." or is
> it "http://mycompany.com/whatever";? Just wondering what would be best to
> use for my own intermal, experimental namespaces.
>
> Jeff
>
> Well, I b
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about things like SOAP over XMPP? There are lots of prefixes in
> that spec:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
>
> However that's just about the only such spec I know of.
There's another extension (an
I think there a big need to have consistent way of:
1. structuring ³shared spaces² in a bldg/floor/room layout
2. attaching multimedia (audio, video, whiteboard, presentations,
voting/surveys, etc) to a MUC to create a ³shared space²
3. attaching asynchronous media (wiki, file storage, blogs,
when creating a namespace, is the preferred format "urn:xxx:yyy..." or is it
"http://mycompany.com/whatever";? Just wondering what would be best to use
for my own intermal, experimental namespaces.
Jeff
On 27-Oct-08, at 3:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
What about things like SOAP over XMPP? There are lots of prefixes in
that spec:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
However that's just about the only such spec I know of.
I never said it would be painless :-)
I think all sides have p
Curtis King wrote:
>
> 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
Dave Cridland wrote:
> Oh, and before I forget, someone also mentioned communities in jdev a
> while back (perhaps the week before last), and a customer was talking
> abut the desire for something fairly similar.
>
> I looked at the communities proto-xep, and it looks... curiously
> compelling, bu
We've seen a pretty strong demand that people who are not in the group
should be able to broadcast to the group, but should not be able to
see the broadcasts going to the group.
The use case is "I would like someone in support to answer this
question, but I shouldn't be able to see the questions t
Brett Zamir wrote:
> In Pubsub XEP-0060, in example 113, for a request to create a node,
> there is this:
>
> from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/elsinore'
>to='pubsub.shakespeare.lit'
>id='create1'>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, just above, it states:
>
>"There are two ways to create a n
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Sat Oct 25 05:27:49 2008, J, Vijayananda wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I have a use case where I need to publish multiple events in multiple
>> nodes in a single publish call (to avoid multiple server trips).
>> Whereas the batch processing feature present in the XEO 0060 allows
>
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 27 17:48:11 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> > On Mon Oct 27 17:36:49 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >> > Dave Cridland wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >> >>> Dave C
On Mon Oct 27 17:48:11 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 27 17:36:49 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> > Dave Cridland wrote:
>> >> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Now, groupchat m
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 27 17:36:49 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> > Dave Cridland wrote:
>> >> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as normal/chat. But
>> >>>
On Mon Oct 27 17:36:49 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Dave Cridland wrote:
Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as normal/chat.
But
>>> should
they be?
>>> Define "cu
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Dave Cridland wrote:
Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as normal/chat. But
>>> should
they be?
>>> Define "currently"; I made a fix to this text in the last revision of
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> > Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as normal/chat. But
>> should
>> > they be?
>>
>> Define "currently"; I made a fix to this text in the last revision of
>> rfc3921bis:
>
> Ah, coo
On Mon Oct 27 17:24:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> Now, groupchat messages are currently handled as normal/chat. But
should
> they be?
Define "currently"; I made a fix to this text in the last revision
of
rfc3921bis:
Ah, cool, however, this really affects 8.3.1.
Am 27.10.2008 um 18:20 schrieb Dave Cridland:
So, should servers be rerouting anyway?
type='groupchat' should be dropped if that resource doesn't exist.
And, perhaps more interestingly, what should a client which receives
an unexpected type='groupchat' be doing with it? (Currently, most
c
Oh, and before I forget, someone also mentioned communities in jdev a
while back (perhaps the week before last), and a customer was talking
abut the desire for something fairly similar.
I looked at the communities proto-xep, and it looks... curiously
compelling, but perhaps too complicated.
Dave Cridland wrote:
> The following thought for the day arises from a conversation I had with
> Kevin Smith; so whilst all opinions and mistakes are my own, this is
> heavily influenced by Kevin.
>
> The behaviour for different types is different, by design.
>
> In particular, when sent to a no
The following thought for the day arises from a conversation I had
with Kevin Smith; so whilst all opinions and mistakes are my own,
this is heavily influenced by Kevin.
The behaviour for different types is different, by design.
In particular, when sent to a non-existent resource:
headline
Brendan Taylor wrote:
> 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
> a
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? IMHO it could be usef
Waqas wrote:
> http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-07.html#rfc.section.3.1.3
>
> "3. If the contact exists and the user already has a subscription to
> the user's presence..."
>
> should be
>
> "3. If the contact exists and the user already has a subscription to
> the c
24 matches
Mail list logo
