Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

Hi Dave, a) It retains some level of compatibility, please see Implementation Notes. It is possible to use 0045 protocol for most of the functionality in transition period. "Substantial chunk of work" is not very precise. In our case the initial implementation that did not support 0045

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

On 14 December 2015 at 16:04, Piotr Nosek wrote: > Hi Dave, > > a) It retains some level of compatibility, please see Implementation > Notes. It is possible to use 0045 protocol for most of the functionality in > transition period. "Substantial chunk of work" is

Re: [Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176

On 12/11/15 2:56 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On 11 December 2015 at 03:56, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: Folks, I am working on revisions [1] to XEP-0176 to bring it up to date with both RFC 6544 (ice-tcp) and draft-ietf-ice-trickle.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

English is weird in lots of ways, so are linguistics in general. I will only point out that when you described "lite" you used "light" in the very same context you used to try and differentiate them. -bjc > On Dec 14, 2015, at 17:18, adansdpc wrote: > > Hi everyone, > >

Re: [Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176

On 12/10/15 9:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On Dec 10, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: Does anyone have concerns with this approach? WFM. I suppose the bigger change is going to be the addition of and end-of-candidates element? Yes, that is an

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

2015-12-14 16:16 GMT+00:00 Dave Cridland : > > > No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over this > protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written service. The result > is that existing '45 features are lost entirely. > The service identifies

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

Hi, 2015-12-14 17:06 GMT+00:00 Tobias M : > > On 14.12.2015, at 17:56, Stefan Strigler > wrote: > > if you want to do IQ with members of a room in the context of MUC Light > you would do so by addressing them directly since there is no

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

Tobias, if you want to do IQ with members of a room in the context of MUC Light you would do so by addressing them directly since there is no concept of anonymous or semi-anonymous rooms. Cheers, Stefan 2015-12-14 16:39 GMT+00:00 Tobias M : > > On 14.12.2015, at

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

On 14 December 2015 at 17:08, Stefan Strigler wrote: > > 2015-12-14 16:16 GMT+00:00 Dave Cridland : > >> >> >> No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over >> this protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

Hi everyone, Excuse me for the impertinence, but I needed to ask: why "muclight" and not "muclite"? One byte is one byte! In addition, "lite" is better understood for lightness (small weight) than "light", that is likely to be confused with the brightness emitted by the sun and glowing