On Fri Sep 16 21:15:43 2011, Florian Zeitz wrote:
Hence a new protocol dropping the old one at the same will:
a) Make old implementations send IQ queries to the new
implementations.
Number of IQs increases with the number of implementers of the new
protocol for some time, but at a certain poin
I think I need some clarification here. I don't see why so many insist
on fixing the current caps protocol.
Caps is an optimization over regular disco. Ideally even dropping it
altogether would not leave anything broken. There are by now XEPs which
require caps, but most (all?) of them only requir
On Fri Sep 16 17:58:17 2011, Kim Alvefur wrote:
I think it shouldn't hurt if meant "I'd really like you to
send an
now, please", and the other party SHOULD reply with , but
not
MUST.
No, that would be bad. I do not wish to second guess why I'm not
getting an , I just want to get one.
On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:58, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 10:33 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/29/11 11:35 AM, Stephen Hill wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> While reviewing XEP-0198 it was noticed an area in Section 4. Acks that
>>> may need some more clarification. It states the
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 10:33 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/29/11 11:35 AM, Stephen Hill wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While reviewing XEP-0198 it was noticed an area in Section 4. Acks that
> > may need some more clarification. It states the following:
> >
> > "When an element ("request") i
On 8/29/11 11:35 AM, Stephen Hill wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While reviewing XEP-0198 it was noticed an area in Section 4. Acks that
> may need some more clarification. It states the following:
>
> "When an element ("request") is recieved, the recipient MUST
> acknowledge it by sending an element to
