FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:14 AM
Subject: Minutes 20110921
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council meeting 20110921.
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/110921/
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Kev present, Ralph absent (arrived after
After last week's XMPP Council meeting, a few folks had a discussion
about MUC status codes (XEP-0306)...
http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/110921/#16:22:29
Ralph Meijer's point was that it would be good to use the same kind of
approach we followed for core stanza errors. So
On 9/24/11 12:14 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
I think it would be better to say this room has moved. There is
mention of something like this in the section on destroying rooms[1],
but it's not mentioned how you should inform someone joining after the
room has been destroyed about the new location.
On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
No, but maybe adding some muc-features
Waqas, thanks for the review. Comments inline. I will push out an
updated version sometime this week, once we settle a few of these issues.
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I've completed a round of revisions
On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
5. Both subject/ and body/ in a single message
(A message with a subject/ and a body/ is a legitimate message,
but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)
I object to this. It complicates subject handling. I believe much
