-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/23/13 10:52 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On 2013-05-23 16:55, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 5/23/13 1:55
On 2013-05-23 16:55, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/23/13 1:55 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> The timing's now reached the perfect level of irony, I think.
On May 22, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Peter Waher wrote:
> Hello Matt (again) and Council members.
>
> Seems I sent the last mail (below) too quickly, and started to think a
> little, with regards to IBB. I have a set of questions/reflections:
>
> The IBB requires an open iq-stanza (with response and
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/23/13 1:55 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > The timing's now reached the perfect level of irony, I think.
>
> It's not clear to me that the XSF can legitimately publish other
> people's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/23/13 1:55 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> The timing's now reached the perfect level of irony, I think.
It's not clear to me that the XSF can legitimately publish other
people's extensions, or that third parties can submit other people's
extensions.
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Minutes 20130522
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130522/
1) Roll call
Matt M, Matt W, Ralph, Tobias, Kev present
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html
Issue Las
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> The advantages are less clear for XMPP. We already know if the other
> end supports encryption or not. However rarely is certificate
> authentication strongly enforced on the general network, for reasons
> we already well know.
>
> I wondere
For sure, just thought I would put the Facebook implementation out there :)
Regards
Spencer
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2013 10:29, "Spencer MacDonald" <
> spencer.macdonald.ot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In all seriousness if this was to be forked in
On 23 May 2013 10:29, "Spencer MacDonald"
wrote:
>
> In all seriousness if this was to be forked into a XEP, it should have a
few more configuration options.
>
> Facebook also have an undocumented feature called suspend
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38943
>
> Facebook's implementati
I'm not sure how much it makes sense, but wanted to get some more
opinions on the matter, because otherwise it will just continue
rattling around my head.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a mechanism that allows a
HTTPS server to inform the browser to never allow unencrypted (or
encrypted
In all seriousness if this was to be forked into a XEP, it should have a
few more configuration options.
Facebook also have an undocumented feature called suspend
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38943
Facebook's implementation is more desirable on platforms such as iOS, as if
you are
The timing's now reached the perfect level of irony, I think.
Dave.
%ents;
]>
Presence Queueing
This specification describes a simple mechanism to provide increased battery life in exchange for increasing the latency of presence.
&LEGALNOTICE;
ProtoXEP
Historical
Standards
12 matches
Mail list logo
