Re: [Standards] Partial data forms

On 25 July 2012 01:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/24/12 8:35 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> On 24 July 2012 14:58, Tuomas Koski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > Howdy folks, > > What is the

Re: [Standards] Partial data forms

On 7/24/12 8:35 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 24 July 2012 14:58, Tuomas Koski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: Howdy folks, What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond] - IM Research

Mark, For the MUC discussion you wanted to find the research giving some figures on message length and frequency. Can it be this one: http://seattle.intel-research.net/~davraham/pubs/Avrahami_CSCW_06.pdf 30 characters p

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond]

Ok, plenty of agreements in this specific thread -- good... On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > This discussion is just about a discrepancy between 6.1.4, 4.1 and > 4.4. > 6.1.4 says " In addition, it is acceptable for the transmission interv

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Lance Stout wrote: > " The element is transmitted at regular intervals by the sender > client while a message is being composed" > > If we're going to be picky about what the first example demonstrates, it > should probably also be noted in this sentence that the

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

> " The element is transmitted at regular intervals by the sender client > while a message is being composed" If we're going to be picky about what the first example demonstrates, it should probably also be noted in this sentence that the regular intervals are intended to be temporal, and not

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > Both Kevin and me detected the little logic gap in the text of section > 4.1 and the example. > That's because you two are smart implementers. You have to factor in all implementers - Implementers who just

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-24 19:21, Mark Rejhon wrote: [About changing XEP-0301 introductory example to transmit fragmented words versus whole words] On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mark Rejhon > wrote: Right now, votes are roughly evenly split (half a dozen Yea's, and ha

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

[About changing XEP-0301 introductory example to transmit fragmented words versus whole words] On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Right now, votes are roughly evenly split (half a dozen Yea's, and half a > dozen Nay's over the last 2 years) > Note -- this includes offline dis

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > I agree > > the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make > little sense to add this here and confuse the discussion. You can't do > word by word without XEP-0301 == and if doing XEP-0301 you can do NT or >

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond]

> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Gunnar Hellström < > gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: I thought the "approximately" to mean something much more close to 700 > ms. I thought you wanted it just because of granularity of timers and that > there is no need to be very precise. If you let it go

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

BUT.. I think about different languages about chinese , thais. If you make wrong word. (invalid word), you need correct this word with back. Op 24/07/2012 17:31, Gregg Vanderheiden schreef: I agree the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make little sense to add

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

I agree the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make little sense to add this here and confuse the discussion. You can't do word by word without XEP-0301 == and if doing XEP-0301 you can do NT or WbWord or SbSentence or CbClause whatever you want. But I would not

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-24 01:41, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Gunnar Hellström mailto:gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se>> wrote: On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote: Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated by not cutting at the word boun

Re: [Standards] Partial data forms

On 24 July 2012 14:58, Tuomas Koski wrote: > Hi, > > On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: >>> Howdy folks, >>> >>> What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted >>> data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configu

Re: [Standards] Partial data forms

Hi, On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> Howdy folks, >> >> What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted >> data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration. >> >> I see three options: >> >> 1) Reject th

Re: [Standards] Partial data forms

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > Howdy folks, > > What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted > data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration. > > I see three options: > > 1) Reject the form > 2) Keep the current value for missing fields >

[Standards] Partial data forms

Howdy folks, What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration. I see three options: 1) Reject the form 2) Keep the current value for missing fields 3) Use the default value for missing fields I think #1 is only necessa