[Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2014-04-02

2014-04-04 Thread Kevin Smith
FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: Kevin Smith Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:34 AM Subject: Minutes 2014-04-02 To: XMPP Council http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2014-04-02/ 1) Roll call Kev, Matt, Fippo, Lance, Tobias present. 2) Date of next meeting 2014-04-09 15:00 UTC 3) Any

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2014-04-02

2014-04-04 Thread Christian Schudt
Regarding the advancement (to Final) of some XEPs, heres my opinion (as a developer/user of your XEPs): 184 Delivery Receipts could be clear about the message type, which must be used for receipts, although no type implies normal. 224 Attention: No concerns for Final. I also find it useful,

[Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Christian Schudt
Hi, I was reading through XEP-0149: Time Periods and saw, that it allows for multiple payloads in a PubSub item, i.e. an activity and a headers element. How is this compatible with 7.1.3.5 Bad Payload (If the item/ element contains more than one payload element, ...) of XEP-0060 PubSub?

Re: [Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Sergey Dobrov
Hi, On 04/04/2014 19:17, Christian Schudt wrote: Hi, I was reading through XEP-0149: Time Periods and saw, that it allows for multiple payloads in a PubSub item, i.e. an activity and a headers element. I believe that the idea is to not treat the headers as payload. But it probably can

Re: [Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Christian Schudt
I believe that the idea is to not treat the headers as payload. But it probably can cause incompatibility for servers that don't know about shim, so probably it would be really nicer to put it inside payload. The problem I am having is that I implemented the item element with a *single*

Re: [Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Sergey Dobrov
yes, I believe we should move headers inside payload. the only problem is PEP protocols XML schemas... On 04/04/2014 20:46, Christian Schudt wrote: I believe that the idea is to not treat the headers as payload. But it probably can cause incompatibility for servers that don't know about

Re: [Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Sergey Dobrov
by the way, is not it a secret where do you implement these XEPs? On 04/04/2014 20:46, Christian Schudt wrote: I believe that the idea is to not treat the headers as payload. But it probably can cause incompatibility for servers that don't know about shim, so probably it would be really

Re: [Standards] XEP-0149: Time Periods vs. XEP-0060

2014-04-04 Thread Christian Schudt
by the way, is not it a secret where do you implement these XEPs? http://sco0ter.bitbucket.org/babbler/