Moving this to soc...@xmpp.org, to catch a bigger crowd. Please reply
there. For reference, the thread start:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023666.html
Comments below.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 22:35 +0200, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
>
> Thanks. Every XEP I
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/16/10 3:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>
>> I'd love that. Not having a fixed timestamp was one reason last
>> activity didn't make it into XEP-0227 (IIRC it was the only data
>> servers commonly stored which didn't make it into the cur
On 7/16/10 3:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> I'd love that. Not having a fixed timestamp was one reason last
> activity didn't make it into XEP-0227 (IIRC it was the only data
> servers commonly stored which didn't make it into the current version
> of the XEP). The relative-to-now time it currently
On 7/16/10 4:06 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
> The W3C standard for 'dateTime' is defined here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
>
> which is based on ISO 8601:2000 Second Edition 2000-12-15.
>
> The extensions should probably reference these definitions.
They do, see XEP-0082: XMPP D
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
>> other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
>>
>> >id='last1'
>>to='ro...@montague.net/or
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
> other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
>
> id='last1'
> to='ro...@montague.net/orchard'
> type='result'>
>
>
>
> vs.
>
> from='jul..
There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
vs.
-06:00
2006-12-19T17:58:35Z
anon!
xa
1
We see this clearly in XEP-0256:
away
I wonder if we want to add a UTC timestamp
>
>
> Thanks. Every XEP I have seen includes a schema section. RFC 4287 defines
> the ATOM schema but it is not clear the ATOM schema should match the schema
> for XEP-0277. I am guessing it does, but if different people guess
> differently then interoperability goes out the window. In fact this ha
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:24 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback
On Fri Jul 16 16:58:22 2010, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>There is a schema, i
On Fri Jul 16 16:58:22 2010, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
I've done some implementation of the XEP and have done some basic
interoperability testing with other implementers. I ran into some
issues due
to the fact where it is not clear which stanzas are required and
which are
optional. For example
I've done some implementation of the XEP and have done some basic
interoperability testing with other implementers. I ran into some issues due
to the fact where it is not clear which stanzas are required and which are
optional. For example, is the stanza element required in the
and stanzas? I wo
11 matches
Mail list logo