FYI.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [MUC] XEP-0249 and "continue"
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:27:21 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre
Reply-To: Multi-User Chat over XMPP
To: ke...@kismith.co.uk, Multi-User Chat over XMPP
On 8/16/11 1:40 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 2011/8/16 Jehan Pagès :
>> The use case is a wordpress plugin I wrote which implements XEP-0070.
>> Basically the first implementation was with a bot
>
>> Now I implemented a component alternative (component.shakespeare.lit).
>
>> Right
2011/8/16 Jehan Pagès :
> The use case is a wordpress plugin I wrote which implements XEP-0070.
> Basically the first implementation was with a bot
> Now I implemented a component alternative (component.shakespeare.lit).
> Right now, only the bot version is really reliable.
Isn't this just sayin
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> 2011/8/16 Jehan Pagès :
>> Hi,
>>
>> so I have just implemented something with XEP-0114 (client side) and I
>> have a few questions.
>>
>> (1) In my case, the component was locale. And I imagine that's quite
>> the most common case. But
On 8/16/11 2:26 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Kurt Zeilenga
> wrote:
>> I think this document is near ready for advancement to Draft.
>>
>> I encourage you to now review (or re-review) the document. Please raise any
>> technical issue to this list. If you have no te
On 8/16/11 1:15 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> 2011/8/16 Jehan Pagès :
>> Hi,
>>
>> so I have just implemented something with XEP-0114 (client side) and I
>> have a few questions.
>>
>> (1) In my case, the component was locale. And I imagine that's quite
>> the most common case. But that's definitely n
On 8/16/11 3:35 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Aug 15 22:57:59 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> > 1) I don't think the new elements need to have a 1:1 mapping with
>> status
>> > codes, and the way in which the registrar considerations is phrased
>> > implies this to be the case. I think we wan
On Mon Aug 15 22:57:59 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 1) I don't think the new elements need to have a 1:1 mapping with
status
> codes, and the way in which the registrar considerations is
phrased
> implies this to be the case. I think we want a new registry, which
> includes "related statu
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> I think this document is near ready for advancement to Draft.
>
> I encourage you to now review (or re-review) the document. Please raise any
> technical issue to this list. If you have no technical issues to raise,
> please note so to th
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 2) We also need to consider that many clients only handle one status
>> code.
>
> Which one do they handle?
It varies, some the first they receive, some the last they receive, I think.
/K
2011/8/16 Jehan Pagès :
> Hi,
>
> so I have just implemented something with XEP-0114 (client side) and I
> have a few questions.
>
> (1) In my case, the component was locale. And I imagine that's quite
> the most common case. But that's definitely not an obligation
> (especially as we could imagine
11 matches
Mail list logo
