Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management)

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:06, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: > > Version 0.4 of XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) has been released. > > Abstract: This document defines a protocol to query and control an archive of > messages stored on a server. > > Changelog: [See revision

Re: [Standards] Carbons - inbound messages to bare jid

Right; this is what we intended the semantics to be. I think the other proposal is not a good idea. - mm {mobile} On Apr 25, 2014 6:58 AM, Thijs Alkemade th...@xnyhps.nl wrote: On 25 apr. 2014, at 13:32, Kim Alvefur z...@zash.se wrote: Hello, It has been brought up that my Carbons

Re: [Standards] Using .well-known/ to supplement XEP-0156

As a self-proclaimed member of the DNS anti-proliferation league, I fully support this. (-: I'd be happy to help out this together. It would help solve some problems we are facing. - mm {mobile} On May 18, 2013 7:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: +1. Yes there is a registry

Re: [Standards] BOSH and legacy auth

If I recall correctly, this issue is about what to do when, after authentication, the client sends a restart=true, but the server does not support that (since there is no way to discover the server's version of support for XEP-0206). - mm {mobile} On Feb 7, 2013 5:50 AM, Stefan Strigler

Re: [Standards] disco identity for client/smartphone?

On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Kozlov Konstantin yag...@yandex.ru wrote: 30.11.2012, 12:26, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice that we have

Re: [Standards] disco identity for client/smartphone?

So, I had always interpreted ”phone” to mean smartphone (-: I'm probably in the minority, though. - mm (mobile; terse) On Nov 29, 2012 4:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Looking at

Re: [Standards] xep-027 encrypted filetransfers

On Oct 17, 2012, at 08:26, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/17/12 5:57 AM, Александр wrote: On Пятница, 12-окт-2012 00:46:57 Александр wrote: On Четверг, 11-окт-2012 23:33:48 Andreas Kuckartz wrote: Александр: Hi all,

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)

On Oct 10, 2012, at 13:47, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 October 2012 15:46, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: Version 0.8 of XEP-0280 (Message Carbons) has been released. Abstract: In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation, outbound

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote: On 2012-08-23 18:31, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/23/12 10:22 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: I do realize this might seem pointless to some, but I really do want

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 23, 2012, at 00:51, Gunnar Hellström wrote: On 2012-08-23 00:34, Matthew Miller wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:32, Gunnar Hellström wrote: /The US Access Board has the following

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text transform ought to be disabled/bypassed. - - mm Matthew A. Miller http://goo.gl/LK55L On Aug 22, 2012, at 02:35, Sergey Dobrov wrote: On 08/22/2012 02:31 AM, Joe

[Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'll slowly be commenting mostly on a section-by-section basis. These are my comments regarding section 1 of XEP-0301: Real-Time Text. There might be some mention of these earlier, but I've lost track. If already addressed previously, then please

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 13:56, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: On 8/22/12 10:33 AM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text transform ought to be disabled/bypassed

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 13:35, Mark Rejhon wrote: Hello Matthew, Thanks for your comments! I eager await your ongoing comments. Just some brief reply: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 14:42, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: * Teletypewriter (TTY) and Text Device for the Deaf (TDD) telephones [citations recommended] Consulted with some

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:28, Gunnar Hellström wrote: I do not think expansion of TTY to Teletypewriter is a good idea. That tends to mean the other use of the term TTY, the device that was often used as a computer operator console terminal a

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote: On 2012-08-22 22:58, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 14:42, Mark

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:51, Gunnar Hellström wrote: On 2012-08-22 23:35, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: agree You can say TTY was derived from Teletypewriter - a device originally used by people who are deaf to communicate. But today

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:32, Gunnar Hellström wrote: /The US Access Board has the following definition in its latest proposal for Accessible procurement, Section 508. E.103.4 /http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm / TTY./

[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes -- 2012-08-22T15:00:00Z

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Begin forwarded message: From: Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net Date: August 22, 2012 16:38:53 MDT To: XMPP Council coun...@xmpp.org Subject: Minutes -- 2012-08-22T15:00:00Z -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 COUNCIL

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:33, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: What would help most to alleviate this discussion further is to include an authoritative citation. here

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 08:54, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote: In fact, I'd argue that this spec is a technical solution to a social problem I note, after drafting many more acerbic

Re: [Standards] XEP-296 problem?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote: Same thing if B just go away or na? so we cannot continue en encrypted conversation if we go away? Conversations with B

Re: [Standards] XEP-296 problem?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 09:45, Yann Leboulanger wrote: Hi, I was wonder what should I do in this situation: user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go from A/r1 to B/r1. user B connects a second client with resource

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 -- embedding small illustrative animated GIF into spec

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have concerns embedding something into a document that reduces its printability. As archaic as this sounds, I often print specifications in order to review them! That said, I'm not immediately opposed to it, but would approach with caution. The

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 20, 2012, at 00:45, Mark Rejhon wrote: About the agreed XEP-0308 and XEP-0301 compatibility: I would like to amend the list of advantages that I sent earlier, due to the improved retroactive editing protocol that is already agreed between

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 Fallback Mechanism of Determining Support (Accessibility)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 11, 2012, at 14:37, Mark Rejhon wrote: ETA is Monday but I will try to accelerate the changes to allow an additional interirm version for reviewers like you. It is just mostly grammatical and wording choices, and section refinements

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Data Forms XML Element

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/20/12 8:42 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/20/12 6:03 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: On 06/20/2012 01:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/19/12 10:17 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: The

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Data Forms XML Element

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The council as decided not to accept the proposal at this time. The primary objections to date are: * Malformed XML - As noted further in this thread, the name xml is not well-formed XML, and MUST be changed to something that is well-formed. - -

[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes - 2012-06-20T15:00:00Z

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net Date: June 20, 2012 10:53:28 MDT To: XMPP Council coun...@xmpp.org Subject: Minutes - 2012-06-20T15:00:00Z -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Meeting

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 09:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we might as well do it right. Some clients and servers use XEP-0018, but it violates the core XMPP specs, which seems like a bad idea. Some clients and server use

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 10:04, Kevin Smith wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: On May 29, 2012, at 09:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we might as well do it right. Some

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 10:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/29/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: On 29 May 2012 17:12, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote: XEP-0186 move to Draft so that we can deprecate XEP-0018 and XEP-0126. Thoughts? I'd note that in 3.1.1. the server MUST

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0198 (Stream Management)

On May 22, 2012, at 14:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/21/12 1:21 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Philipp Hancke wrote: old thread alert... Version 1.3 of XEP-0198 (Stream Management) has been released. I implemented 0198 for s2s and am in general quite happy with it.

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0198 (Stream Management)

On May 22, 2012, at 15:10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/22/12 3:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 14:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/21/12 1:21 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Philipp Hancke wrote: old thread alert... Version 1.3 of XEP-0198 (Stream

Re: [Standards] XEP-0068 x-

From the original text, I think it's important to namespace, and I think it's important to agree how a namespace is included in the field name. Precisely how the namespace substring is formatted is less important; it can be a URI, a URN, a Java reverse-domain, or something else. On May 15,

Re: [Standards] XMPP WG meeting this week

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 28, 2012, at 14:18, Kevin Smith wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The IETF’s XMPP Working Group will hold an in-person meeting this week

[Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2012-02-08T16:00:00Z

FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net Date: February 8, 2012 10:27:26 MST To: XMPP Council coun...@xmpp.org Subject: Minutes 2012-02-08T16:00:00Z [room log: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120208/] START 1) Roll Call

Re: [Standards] XEP-0096 (SI File Transfer): Where is a fallback mechanism described?

On Jan 12, 2012, at 02:56, Sergey Dobrov wrote: On 01/12/2012 03:57 PM, Marcus Lundblad wrote: tor 2012-01-12 klockan 15:47 +0700 skrev Sergey Dobrov: Hello, I am reading the XEP-96 and see in the requirements section: Enable seamless file transfer, including fall-back mechanisms as

Re: [Standards] Council Decision on DMUC3 Proto-XEP

On Jan 9, 2012, at 09:06, Wayne Franklin wrote: Matthew, Sorry to hear that you didn't see the advantages to our approach. We respect the decision of the council and will provide feedback to XEP-0289. Does this mean that the other DMUC specs are out of the running? I personally

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: Let me suggest a bolder idea. Why do we need to wrap the carbons using Message Forwarding at all instead of just delivering the message stanzas as is? You will only receive these additional message carbons if your client supports carbons and

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:41, Mike Wacker wrote: On 1/5/2012 7:31 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: Let me suggest a bolder idea. Why do we need to wrap the carbons using Message Forwarding at all instead of just delivering the message stanzas

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 09:03, Mike Wacker wrote: On 1/5/2012 7:43 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:41, Mike Wacker wrote: On 1/5/2012 7:31 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: Let me suggest a bolder idea. Why do we need to wrap the carbons

Re: [Standards] Use of Message Forwarding in other XEPs

On Jan 4, 2012, at 05:46, Kim Alvefur wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:24 +, Kevin Smith wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On Wed Jan 4 11:12:56 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: messagecarbonforwardmessage//forward/carbon/message Isn't the forward/

Re: [Standards] Use of Message Forwarding in other XEPs

On Jan 4, 2012, at 07:25, Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Jan 4 14:22:30 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: I think it'd be good to pick something and use it consistently, whatever that thing is. I'd like to paint it green. Only if you know the Mayor of Boston. - mm http://goo.gl/LK55L

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 4, 2012, at 03:57, Kevin Smith wrote: I've just been reading through the current version of http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html and have a couple of comments: In example 14, we have: message xmlns='jabber:client' from='ro...@example.net'