Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 (Microblogging over XMPP) Feedback

2010-07-16 Thread Ralph Meijer
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

Re: [Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Waqas Hussain
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

Re: [Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Tom Pusateri
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

Re: [Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Waqas Hussain
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..

[Standards] timestamp consistency

2010-07-16 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback

2010-07-16 Thread Guus der Kinderen
> > > 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

Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback

2010-07-16 Thread Stephen Pendleton
-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

Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback

2010-07-16 Thread Dave Cridland
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

[Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback

2010-07-16 Thread Stephen Pendleton
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