On 2015-10-05 10:48, Stefan Strigler wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> when implementing parts of XEP-0060 I came across a maybe inconsistency
> when it's about unsubscribing from a Node (Section 6.2.2
> - http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#subscriber-unsubscribe).
>
> If we'd allow to also have a
Hey there,
when implementing parts of XEP-0060 I came across a maybe inconsistency
when it's about unsubscribing from a Node (Section 6.2.2 -
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#subscriber-unsubscribe).
If we'd allow to also have a the resulting subscription element in the
response, the
Hi Ralph,
I totally agree, I've been thinking about this as well. It's just that I
consider it too unrealistic to have that prominent XEP changed so
significantly. Maybe I'm wrong?
I brought that up because if you're operating in a controlled environment,
client wise you know what you can rely
On 1 October 2015 at 05:04, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Sam Whited wrote:
>> This seems like a great candidate to add to the blocking command, and
>> something that we should persue if we think that it's a common enough
>> use