On Sat Aug 6 11:11:54 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 20.07.2011 12:26, schrieb Dave Cridland:
On Wed Jul 20 04:34:29 2011, Mark Rejhon wrote:
So, does anyone recommend a standardized method of a sub-70-byte
keep
alive
?
NOPE!
XEP-0198 "Null acks" are good. Just send an even if you don'
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Anecdotal evidence from different service implementations seems to
>> support my expectation that they are sent from the JID the original
>> presence was sent to. That'd mean that either the spec is wrong or all
>> implementations are.
>
> 100%
On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 09:31 +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence from different service implementations seems to
> > support my expectation that they are sent from the JID the original
> > presence was sent to. That'd mean that either the spec is wrong or all
> > implementations are.
>
> Anecdotal evidence from different service implementations seems to
> support my expectation that they are sent from the JID the original
> presence was sent to. That'd mean that either the spec is wrong or all
> implementations are.
100% of the servers that I tested this against (sample size: 1)
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been reviewing the code in the branch for MUC client support in
> Wokkel against XEP-0045. I noticed that the examples for error
> conditions in reply to room join and status and nick change presences
> are sent from the room JID,
Hi,
I've been reviewing the code in the branch for MUC client support in
Wokkel against XEP-0045. I noticed that the examples for error
conditions in reply to room join and status and nick change presences
are sent from the room JID, instead from the occupant JID the presence
(change) was sent to.
