On Tue Apr 14 09:41:28 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/4/14 Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net:
On Mon Apr 13 18:18:39 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
Am I right?
Yes, you are, well spotted.
Actually, I'm not. My reasoning would require that the items
themselves are partial, which they are not.
2009/4/14 Jiří Zárevúcký zarevucky.j...@gmail.com:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
In 3rd bullet point of section 4,
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0224.html#rules imho, a user could well
receive a delayed 'attention', though I propose the change from MUST
to SHOULD.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Nicolas Vérité
nicolas.ver...@gmail.com wrote:
Not so nonsense: I wish I had the passed attention requests when I get
back to my client...
It is a worthwhile information, even if it's too late. That way, I
could contact back the guy that tried to get my
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
2009/4/14 Jiří Zárevúcký zarevucky.j...@gmail.com:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
In 3rd bullet point of section 4,
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0224.html#rules imho, a user could well
receive a delayed 'attention',
On 4/14/09 3:44 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
2009/4/14 Jiří Zárevúcký zarevucky.j...@gmail.com:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
In 3rd bullet point of section 4,
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0224.html#rules imho, a user
On 4/14/09 3:36 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
In 5th bullet point, I propose a change to
The attention extension MUST NOT use iq/ stanzas, since use this
feature is part of the conversation.
No objections against that. There's a typo though,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 15:56, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 4/14/09 3:36 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
2009/4/14 Nicolas Vérité nicolas.ver...@gmail.com:
In 5th bullet point, I propose a change to
The attention extension MUST NOT use iq/ stanzas, since use this
feature is part
resend...
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:15:47 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
To: XMPP Standards standards@xmpp.org
On 4/14/09 3:06 AM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
But I realized there is
On 4/13/09 11:59 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[snip]
Now what happens should I attempt to piggyback the users.jabber.org
connection on the jabber.org connection? jabber.org kills my stream.
Really? Why?
host-unknown/.
If jabber.org really does host users.jabber.org,
On 4/13/09 11:59 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre
[snip]
* connection reuse for multiple s2s links would be a very useful
feature, ask Dave for details
Piggybacking.
Which is subtly broken in RFC 3920 - at least 50% of it.
host-unknown/ makes 'target piggybacking' (different
You are raising the scenario of the stream dying right after the server
sends 303. I'm saying that client 1 MUST NOT consider itself to be up to
date when it receives 303, because the server has already told it that
the latest version is 305. Therefore, when the client reconnects it MUST
On 4/14/09 12:44 PM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
You are raising the scenario of the stream dying right after the server
sends 303. I'm saying that client 1 MUST NOT consider itself to be up to
date when it receives 303, because the server has already told it that
the latest version is 305.
On March 12 and again today, we held a Monthly XMPP Meeting:
http://logs.jabber.org/j...@conference.jabber.org/2009-03-12.html#15:01:15
http://logs.jabber.org/j...@conference.jabber.org/2009-04-14.html#14:06:45
I know it's a bit backwards, but I'm going to report on today's meeting
first
Back in August 2007, I posted a list of specs that we might want to push
to Final status:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-August/016477.html
Of those, we have advanced the following:
XEP-0012: Last Activity
XEP-0085: Chat State Notifications
XEP-0174: Serverless Messaging
14 matches
Mail list logo
