On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> The discussion drifted a bit into whether non-stanza top-level stream
> elements should be used for a particular use case/XEP
> or not. But what I really wanted to discuss is whether they could be
> used after resource binding in general,
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 20.04.2015 18:22, Christian Schudt wrote:
> >
> >> For me personally, the contra-Nonza arguments did not convince me. It
> >> appears that nothing in the specification prevents you from using Nonzas
> >> after resource binding with BOSH
FYI.
I'll discuss this with the protoXEP author; I suspect he'll be quite
understanding.
Dave.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dave Cridland
Date: 22 April 2015 at 17:42
Subject: Veto against namespaces protoXEP
To: XMPP Council
There is some possibility that XEP-0001 might be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 4/20/15 7:08 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> Dear authors for XEP-0082: XMPP Date and Time Profiles,
>
> please consider the attached patch to clarify that the 'CCYY' part
> may consists of more then four digits and may be prefixed with a
> minus
The discussion drifted a bit into whether non-stanza top-level stream
elements should be used for a particular use case/XEP
or not. But what I really wanted to discuss is whether they could be
used after resource binding in general, or if this should be disallowed.
That's why I asked the council me
