On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:40:14 +0200
"Zenon Kuder jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again, I came up with some more comments :-)
>
> From introductory text of section 2.1:
> "[...] If the data is not cached, the recipient would then retrieve
> the data by sending an IQ-get to the sender (or pote
y/019390.html
> 30 of July 2008 03:49:01 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >> I further propose we add some informational section about
> >> generation of CIDs. Although it's specified elsewhere, I believe
> >> this XEP will be very us
Hello,
maybe you could use a hash function (or unique identifier) that has
lower probability of random conflicts than the probability of random RAM
errors :).
Just joking, with computers, you can be never sure, so "almost sure" is
usually good enough if it's just a matter of trying it again.
(Bt
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
Hmm, good idea, this simple direct invitation protocol, it makes sense
to send invitation to the people I invite.
Just a sidenote, couldn't "venue"
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:31:00 -0700
Justin Karneges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 11 August 2008 14:04:22 Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:45:08 -0600
> >
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Server DOM grovel
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:45:08 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Karneges wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 August 2008 08:54:22 Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:59:50 -0600
> >>
> >> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:36:12 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> >> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0231.html
> >
> > That's it :).
>
> Super. So now I think we need to issue a second Last Call on
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:39:19 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 0.8 of XEP-0231 (Bits of Binary) has been released.
>
> Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for
> including or referring to small bits of binary data in an XML stanza.
>
> C
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:52:23 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:15:16 -0600
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 7
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:15:16 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
> > "Marcus Lundblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I s
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
"Marcus Lundblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I saw that the use-cases of XEP-0231 has been removed along with the
> service discovery features.
I believe we just lost the service discovery on the way. But it will be
the same case as with XHTML-I
None forbids their implementation, but do you think every client should
implement them?
Pavel
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:18:19 -0600
Joe Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implementation experience has shown that and friends is
> strongly demanded by users, mostly because of copy/paste from
>
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:50:01 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > this is just reactions to your post, I will later summarize what I
> > have and include some examples so we can advance from theory t
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:28:16 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 0.4 of XEP-0231 (Data Element) has been released.
>
> Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for
> including small bits of binary data in an XML stanza.
>
> Changelog: Generali
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:16:45 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>> I like the part that only client/* should be interpreted as
> >>> IM-capable resources, but I don't know if that is too strict.
> >>
> >> That's probably
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:59:50 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pedro Melo wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Ovidiu Craciun wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Excerpt from:
> >> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-06.html
> >>
> >> "Section: 8.3. Gener
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:40:49 +0200
Maciek Niedzielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jehan wrote:
> > But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
>
> And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not semantics:
> most end users want to get (and send) what they see. And they want
> y
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:49:05 +0200
Jehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivier Goffart;2116 Wrote:
> > L
> > It could also make use of a WIKI-like syntax
> >
>
> Yes for my own, if really we are interested on client side text
> structuration, the wiki style is one of the best approach for
> te
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:47:25 +0100
Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu Jul 31 17:54:32 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu Jul 31 17:17:40 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Moving forward, this would allow clever clients to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:07:04 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:04:16 -0600
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 29 J
Hello Peter,
this is just reactions to your post, I will later summarize what I have
and include some examples so we can advance from theory to something
real.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:23:36 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(citation shortened)
> > 2) The simpler case - user publ
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:21:43 +0200
"Sylvain Mundialco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Can I have more clarity on these:
>
> We are implementing jingle and all is going all but the configuration
> NAT/Firewall for both peer is not working. I'm thinking to use relayed
> candidate but I know
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:04:16 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:49:01 -0600
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Ahoj Pavle!
> >>
> >> Pavel Simerda
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:04:33 +0200
Jehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peter Saint-Andre;1984 Wrote:
> >
> > Please quote the entire section:
> >
> > ***
> >
> > A user agent that implements this specification MUST conform to
> > Section
> >
> > 3.5 ("XHTML Family User Agent Conformance") o
Hello,
folks at jabbim.cz are working on a service for a single-contact
webchat (visitors of your website may chat with you in a simple UI).
There are various issues with the implementation on XMPP. Especially
the JID of the web user.
1) It could be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem is with presenc
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:49:01 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahoj Pavle!
>
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have some suggestions for XEP-0231 (Data Element).
>
> Thanks for looking at this spec so thoroughly.
>
I actua
Hello,
I'm going to describe the issues we discussed in the jdev MUC room from
my point of view. I'll also try to offer something new :).
dwd pointed out many issues with enterprise-grade solutions and user
profiles. stpeter suggested that these may also affect bigger public
services (e.g. Facebo
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:21:02 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahoj Pavle! ;-)
>
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I finally got to examine the XEP-0154 (User Profile).
>
> Thanks for the review.
It was fun :).
> > When
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:07:24 +0100
Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(citations shortened, for the sake of readability)
> Right, I thought so too, initially. But data forms are well
> understood, and prevent people from going too crazy about these
> things. Ideally, I just want key=>va
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:09:34 +0200
"Grégoire Menuel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Pavel Simerda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 1) Look at the examples at
> > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html (Personal E
nt (or currently use) chatstates.
Is the answer: Ok, we have no session, we send it each time again?
Pavel
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:46:06 +0200
Marcus Lundblad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ons 2008-07-23 klockan 03:52 +0200 skrev Pavel Simerda:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I h
ate XEPs?
This are a lot of issues to cope with, I expect a lot of comments and
discussion. I want to help as much as I can with this one :), tell me
what need to be done.
Cheers,
Pavel Simerda
--
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net
Hello,
I have some suggestions for XEP-0231 (Data Element).
Right now, as the example shows:
Yet here's a spot.
Yet here's a spot.
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgoKCAYAAACNMs+9BGdBTUEAALGP
C/xhBQlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAd0SU1
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
