Version 0.1 of XEP-0283 (Moved) has been released.
Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol extension that enables a user
to inform its contacts about a change in JID.
Changelog: Initial published version. (psa)
Diff: N/A
URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0283.html
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0231.html#format indicates that the
'type' attribute is REQUIRED on the element, as does the XML
schema section, but in the examples, it's only included on the returned
data (which is sensible, a requesting client cannot know what the data
actually is).
My opinion i
On 6/14/10 11:18 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
> 15.06.2010 15:09, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
>> 15.06.2010 07:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I've performed initial triage on about 30% of the issues reported on
>>> 3920bis during WGLC (through the end of Section 4). Feel free to comment
>>> on the i
On 6/16/10 5:05 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
> It doesn't appear that any work has been done on this since last Fall.
Correct. Someone else pinged me about this just today. Whether anyone
steps up to take over maintainership is an open question. My plate is
full for the next few months, so don't look at
Ping.
It doesn't appear that any work has been done on this since last Fall.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/12/09 12:51 AM, Jason wrote:
> > This saddens me too.
>
> No one has died. Let's not get too sad. :)
The operations described in the XEP can be divided into two
categories.
1. From an unauthenticated user (request registration form, register)
Theses involve sending IQs to the host. What isn't specified is
what the host is when the stanza is missing a 'to' attribute (as
most of the examp
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Konstantin Kozlov wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author
>>> of XEP-0184 do not agree wi
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue?
Well, because the way that
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
>> On 06/16/2010 08:57 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> Note that 184 is explicit about not using it for triggering re-sends.
>> So you know that your contact didn't received the message but y
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:57 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Note that 184 is explicit about not using it for triggering re-sends.
> So you know that your contact didn't received the message but you're not
> allowed to re-send it? I mean client doesn't r
On 06/16/2010 08:57 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Note that 184 is explicit about not using it for triggering re-sends.
So you know that your contact didn't received the message but you're not
allowed to re-send it? I mean client doesn't re-send it automatically,
ok, but user does.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
>>
>> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following text makes it clear, though:
>>> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice
>>> if it has recei
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I think the following text makes it clear, though:
>> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice
>> if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is
>> und
> On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
> > The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of
> > XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue?
> Maybe we should just choose what we want of this XEP and just re-phrase
> some sentences.
> I personaly
On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I think the following text makes it clear, though:
'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice
if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is
understood to include pr
Different clients have different ways to determne if message is read by the
user. For example, the client I'm developing right now has 2 absolutely
disfferent ways. So, I think message is better way to determine that
message is read by the user, than attempts to guess about it analysing chat
s
On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think the following text makes it clear, though:
> 'Specifically, the receiving entity shall return a notice
> if it has received and processed the message. The term "processed" is
> understood to include presentation to a human user if appropriate or
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Yann Leboulanger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
On 06/16/2010 08:27 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
which he has said I c
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/16/10 12:21 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
>> On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter
>>> Saint-Andre wrote:
I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
w
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> wrote:
>>> I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
>>> which he has said I can paste here. The general idea i
On 6/16/10 12:21 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter
>> Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
>>> which he has said I can paste here. The general idea is: do we need
On 06/16/2010 08:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
which he has said I can paste here. The general idea is: do we need
something in XEP-0184 to indicate that a message has been
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
> which he has said I can paste here. The general idea is: do we need
> something in XEP-0184 to indicate that a message has been read by the
> intended recipient? This
I just had an interesting conversation with "yagiza" about XEP-0184,
which he has said I can paste here. The general idea is: do we need
something in XEP-0184 to indicate that a message has been read by the
intended recipient? This would be similar to the element in
XEP-0022. I'm not convinced tha
We may also need to talk with Fabien Cazenave and Sonny Piers:
http://x-home.hd.free.fr/projects/sxEdit/report/index.html
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 22:15, Arc Riley wrote:
> Is there any effort to collaborate with the Infinote developers?
>
> http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Infinote
>
> On Wed, Jun
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Subject: Minutes 2010-06-14
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
All present
2) Agenda bashing.
None
3) XEP-0124: BOSH
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.10.html
Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/di
27 matches
Mail list logo
