been busy (me and
Kev), and that we plan to keep some of these alive, but in the
meantime they will be changed to Deferred. When they are updated
again, they will return to Experimental.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.
do we need to maintain backward
> compatibility here, or can we skip all references to XEP-0078
> altogether?
I think we can remove the XEP-0078 references. It has been obsolete
since 2008.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/Mac
gt;
> Cheers, Jef & Tobi
>
> [1] http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Secure_Distributed_JID_Discovery
>
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAg
it could use with
simplification. Do you have any other suggestions along those lines?
> Really pleased with the ideas for breaking up xep-0060 into more
> manageable chunks from the summit too :)
Indeed. Ralph and I will get to work on that pronto!
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stp
04.02.2013 um 22:39 schrieb Steffen Larsen :
>>>
>>>> Just checked strophe, and it does not use it. I'll check some more
>>>> implementations that uses BOSH for transport. Maybe that would give us
>>>> an indication.
>>>>
>&
to
> a drop,
>> but If I remember correctly people raised a lot of browser
>> security
> concerns at time
>>
>
> Yes, because having authentication at the WebSocket layer was ruled
> out.
>
> Because XMPP has auth, we get to have secure resumption.
Wo
gt;
> On 04/02/2013 10:30, "Steffen Larsen" wrote:
>
>> Cross-posted from the summit list (sorry making noise).
>> Here are my small notes to the BOSH action list (embedded).
>>
>>
>> /Steffen
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
&
I think so!
Sent from mobile, might be terse
On Feb 3, 2013, at 1:33 PM, "Winfried Tilanus" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Websockets will often be used by clients who have quite a big chance of
> broken connections, like mobile clients, clients using wireless
> connections or other low quality consumer-gr
if you have more
specific feedback.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlEHO2gACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwj/QCfTDgUpyGX80VaE6AmvY
cusax/
(And if you have feedback on the CUSAX I-D, please do send it along,
preferably to the dispa...@ietf.org list.)
Thanks!
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/25/13 9:42 AM, Winfried Tilanus wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 05:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-01#section-3.5
>
>
New editors might be
required to get it done. However, it appears that this document will
probably become an official work item of the XMPP WG at the IETF (I
sent proposed charter text to the chairs last night), so discussion
there might be appropriate at some point too.
Peter
- --
Peter Sain
se it's the middle of the
> night for me compared to you"). What I am suggesting is adding a
> note somewhere about the concern.
>
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to add this security notice to
> XEP-0082, since it applies to everywhere you use timestamps that
&g
ul. Or this may just be
> a solution in search of a problem!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ash
>
> On 05/01/2013 03:32, "Peter Saint-Andre"
> wrote:
>
> Kurt Zeilenga has submitted version 1.1 of XEP-0258. This requires
> Council approval. The diff and rendered
u
Yes, we have a flow for account creation in XEP-0133, but it would be
good if at the least XEP-0077 were not silent about how to handle user
registrations containing 'to' addresses.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/Mac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/3/13 11:29 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> Version 0.1 of XEP-0316 (MUC Eventing Protocol) has been released.
>
> Abstract: This specification defines semantics for using the XMPP
> publish-subscribe protocol to broadcast state change events
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/30/12 6:11 AM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:
>
>
> 30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" :
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/d
From: Peter Saint-Andre
To: fos...@lists.fosdem.org
The Jabber/XMPP community will once again host a devroom at FOSDEM 2013.
Jabber/XMPP is a set of open technologies for real-time communication,
which power a wide range of applications including instant messaging,
presence, multi-party chat, voice
FYI, this is your last chance to provide input on this spec. Please send
feedback to the pre...@ietf.org list.
Thanks!
Peter
Original Message
Subject: [precis] WGLC: draft-ietf-precis-nickname-05.txt
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:48:44 +0900
From: Yoshiro YONEYA
To: pre...@ietf.org
FYI.
Original Message
Subject:A draft for e-reading activities over XMMP
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:52:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Olli
Reply-To: activity-stre...@googlegroups.com
To: activity-stre...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
this an announcement of a draft speci
might want to add an identity for
"client/smartphone" (i.e., a phone that can do a lot more than the
old-style phones we had in mind when we defined "client/phone").
Thoughts?
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/17/12 5:41 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 10/15/12 12:21 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>> I agree w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We're back online. Diagnostics continue.
On 11/26/12 11:59 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We're having hardware issues on the xmpp.org webserver right now,
> so the site is down. We're working to bring it back up, and
> lon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We're having hardware issues on the xmpp.org webserver right now, so
the site is down. We're working to bring it back up, and longer-term
working to make the website such that it is easier to mirror.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/1/12 11:38 AM, Todd Herman wrote:
>> -Original Message- From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org
>> [mailto:standards- boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Peter
>> Saint-Andre Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:48 PM To:
>&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FYI.
- Original Message
Subject: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:47:29 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre
To: XMPP Working Group
At the XMPP Summit last week, we talked a bit about XMPP and the web,
including the
; experimental status ? Is anybody working on something similar ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks Goffi
>>
>> PS: sent a copy of this to the author of the XEP, and the
>> standard@ mailing list.
>>
>
>
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
genda for XMPP Summit 12
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:29:45 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre
Reply-To: XMPP Summit
To: XMPP Summit
Folks, here is a rough agenda for XMPP Summit 12 next week in
Portland. Please provide feedback, let me know if you want to lead a
discussion, speak up if you think other t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/17/12 9:21 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 08:26, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 10/17/12 5:57 AM, Александр wrote:
>>> On
ake a long time
to transfer the file. Another way would be to run your own trusted
file transfer proxy, use XEP-0065, and require SSL/TLS on both ends of
the proxy. I'm sure there are other solutions, too (e.g., for a while
we were discussing something called XTLS). It's not such an ea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you send feedback by the end of this week, I can incorporate it
into a new version on Monday (the deadline for submitting revised
Internet-Drafts before the next IETF meeting).
On 10/8/12 1:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> As you might know f
out this very topic last week, so I will
introduce you to him offlist in case you want to work together.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/12/12 7:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 10/12/12 4:07 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>
>>> (I also won
ary to use use 'style' attributes (e.g., this is green). However, where
possible it is instead RECOMMENDED to use appropriate structural
elements (e.g., and instead of, say,
style='font-weight: bold' or style='margin-left: 5%').
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stp
an updated version would be forthcoming.
I look forward to reviewing the revised spec.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlB40PoA
On 10/12/12 4:07 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>>
>>>> I am also not sure about the and
>>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>
>> I am also not sure about the and
>> elements: they are shown as a recommended element to support
>> (7.8), but the business rule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/22/12 7:26 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> 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 06/20/20
ound information, here is the tutorial I presented
at the XMPP Summit a few years ago:
https://stpeter.im/files/i18n-intro.pdf
Thanks!
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla
ar as I understand it, RFDa is another example of XHTML
modularization. Thus it wouldn't fit into the XHTML-IM modularization;
instead we'd need to define a new XEP.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/27/12 9:49 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 09:38 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/22/12 2:13 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
>>> wrote:
>>>&g
s a proper codebase for
> XEP validation, because the limitations of console clients do not
> allow a full implementation (e.g. font changes, text-decorations
> other than underline, relative margins, etc).
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for implementing as much as possible
given the for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/27/12 8:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/1/12 3:42 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2012 07:43 AM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>>
>>> There is the matter of the tag that accepts a
>>> data:base64 as a
ax
>> stanza size to 10 KiB).
Usually something between 10k and 64k. But yes, there are
restrictions, and I tend to agree that we should strongly prefer
pointers to external images over inline data: URLs.
> agree. possibly, we need to prefer XEP-231 for that?
Probably. I'll look at the XE
he message correction
spec, or (for microblogging) in the equivalent of "modified tweets"?
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.n
not structured by the sending user
agent using XHTML elements and attributes; if the sender wishes text
to be structured (e.g., for certain words to be emphasized or for URIs
to be linked), the sending user agent MUST represent the text using
the appropriate XHTML elements and attributes."
P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/12 12:19 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 08:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 9/18/12 11:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> On 09/18/2012 08:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/21/12 9:44 AM, Todd Herman wrote:
>> -Original Message- From: Peter Saint-Andre
>> [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012
>> 11:40 AM To: XMPP Standards Cc: Todd Herman Subject: Re:
>> [Stand
ot; referred to some application (client or
> component) that already has an account and would simply use the
> registration process to register another use. Is this an accurate
> assumption?
By "service" we mean something like a multi-user chat service, which
you can acc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oops, this was meant for x...@ietf.org. Too much multitasking...
On 9/18/12 12:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI, I'm working on an revised version of 6122bis to align it with
> the other PRECIS-related specs. The revisions are smal
(e.g.,
locale-specific mappings) as a MAY.
If there are no concerns/objections, I'll incorporate that update in
the next revision.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozi
Of interest from the kit...@ietf.org list...
Original Message
Subject:Re: [kitten] Google and SASL OAuth
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:47:03 -0700
From: Ryan Troll
To: Hannes Tschofenig
CC: kit...@ietf.org
Sure. A little history:
- The XMPP implementation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/12 11:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 08:21 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> (Btw, the current XMPP OAuth XEP is also insecure...)
>> Calling it "current" is a bit of a stretch.:) It was deferred
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/12 11:16 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Here is my impression: Since the community OAuth specification
> allowed the usage of PLAIN without TLS there is most likely still a
> lot of code out there that uses it without any confidentiality
> prot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/17/12 3:00 PM, Ivan Martinez wrote:
> I'm currently considering wether to use OAuth2 or OpenID2 in my
> server. Which one do you think will be more adopted as a user
> authentication mechanism in XMPP servers?. Which companies are
> planing to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As author of XEP-0281, I have changed its state from Deferred to
Retracted, since I now favor XEP-0289 instead. Just FYI.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin
ds in
> applications and rely on 2-step verification with OAuth2 bearer
> tokens.
Right. Google is deprecating PLAIN for their service (hey, 2-factor is
good), but PLAIN is not being deprecated for XMPP in general. Yet... ;-)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/11/12 4:24 PM, Lance Stout wrote:
> It's a bit annoying that they add an extra attribute to the /> element, because it adds a special case to check in what would
> ideally be a fully generic implementation. Fortunately, it doesn't
> seem to be re
bably it is not yet
widely implemented in SASL libraries or in XMPP servers and clients.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECA
only for security reasons, but
> to maintain conversational flow.
That seems like a reasonable user interface (not automagically
changing the original).
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/12 10:32 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> Thanks for addressing these! I agree with the majority of this
> group of comments. Some questions and inquiries below:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Peter Sa
West Touhy Avenue,
Skokie, Illinois). I found a scanned-in copy here:
http://www.rtty.com/TTYSTORY/ttsindex.htm
Or did you want something more modern?
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using Gn
mbining character sequences instead of composite
characters. So I think it's fine as-is.
>>> I'm not sure how the recipient's client will show a combining
>>> mark without a base character, but the potential for user
>>> confusion might be high, here.
>
oblematic). In sum, this
section isn't really providing much advice about how to *control*
congestion (e.g., back off on sending so much data), or the advice is
lost amongst the other text. Let's make this stronger.
42. In the schema definition of the element, I think you want
xs:choice, n
bother me much. I'm more interested in
the technical aspects of the specification at this point. :)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
links.
I noticed that recently, too. The images are on the disk but not being
served correctly by the webserver. The infrastructure team will
investigate.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FYI.
- Original Message
Subject: [Security] Vulnerability in XMPP Server Dialback Implementations
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:03:45 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre
Reply-To: XMPP Security
To: secur...@xmpp.org
As posted at
http
nology
> instead of "Message Reset" terminology)
Thanks, Mark. I'll await your further considerations and move along
with the remainder of my review. :)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/20/12 10:11 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>
> On 2012-08-20 11:47 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 8/20/12 9:3
bably fine for both. Clearly, somewhere
along the line someone thought that the distinction was valuable
(e.g., because a client might have expected a message with a
at some point and never received it). That reminds me, is there value
in describing the state machine a bit more completely?
Peter
- --
l that.
> The recipient can redisplay the real-time message as a result.
Redisplay the state of the message so far, or replay how that message
was generated?
> It allows real-time text conversation to resume quickly, without
> waiting for senders to start a new message.
>
> I lik
ay what you say, I am
> also introducing a potential new confusion about the lack of
> distinction between event=new and event=reset. This must be
> thought out carefully. Your revision does not solve confusion
> without creating a new, separate confusion.
To me, reset sou
mposing composite characters into combining sequences as a
recommended practice. In any case, NFC will perform recomposition
anyway, so this advice might be moot (or at least confusing).
See also:
"It is possible for Element – Insert Text to contain any subset
sequence
to solve problems and it seems fine to me -- not
everything needs to start out as some specification, and XMPP didn't
start out that way either. :)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/16/12 1:50 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 10:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/14/12 2:43 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>>> Also, we need an ability to make a link to files, which,
>>> possibly, will nee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/15/12 9:16 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>> In a chatroom I frequent, someone just used last message
>> correction, which my client does not support...
>>
>>
e file host would advertise the existence
of the files using something like XEP-0137 (or its Jingle equivalent
- -- this is currently unspecified in XEP-0234 but I think we need to
add it).
> So, if we want to take care about finish, which XEP should it be?
> What is the other nuances or gu
ould be significant and subject to abuse.
> I don't object to progressing 308 to Draft.
It's not a hill for me to die on.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/15/12 8:51 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>> On 8/15/12 8:28 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>> In fact, I'd argue that this spec is a technical solution to
>>
y to make such corrections by
changing the last message instead of explaining the error in a new
message?
Realistically, so few clients will support this extension that it'll
be as if it doesn't exist.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/14/12 9:51 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/13/12 3:03 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>> Kurt Zeilenga:
>>> From a user perspective, often what I want to correct isn't
>>> the last stanza I sent.
>
>>
mistakes when typing such
messages (as people do in email messages to lists like this one). Do
you have the ability to edit every email message you've ever sent? No,
so just get over it.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.
so we can push this to Draft before
long.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
regard to these specifications? Converting some of them to Deprecated
makes sense to me, subject to meeting certain criteria (age, lack of
use, poor design).
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
ight cost me money by running
up my bandwidth usage).
> Section 9:
>
> How does XMPP indicate that a message should be displayed LTR or RTL? Is
> that derived from the language indicated in the tag? This is legal:
>
> This would display left-to-right
>
> In any case,
e an interest,
please join the pubsub@ list:
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/pubsub
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
liation -notifications" in
> http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event namespace (where I think it's
> more consistent with the rest of the events).
Well, I said I would flag this as an open issue, and I suppose it still
is, because I haven't gotten around to working on revisions to XEP-0060. :(
However, I think we have agreement that this is an error in the spec.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
o think it would be good to validate it with existing
implementations. I'll forward this reply to the pub...@xmpp.org list to
poke them in case they're not paying attention here.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
is still the record of authority here.
>
>
> - m&m
>
> Matthew A. Miller <http://goo.gl/LK55L>
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 07:46, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>
>> Note: Precedent on image embeds exists -- an example image is
>> embedded into XHTML-IM (XEP-0071).
&g
/NOT required/NOT REQUIRED/)
> Basic Real-Time Text allows you to transmit message changes via
> Message Reset, so there are situations where you're always using an
> 'event' attribute for all elements.
> How can the wording be tweaked, so that circumstance is accomodated for?
There's no such thing as NOT REQUIRED in RFC 2119. I suggest changing it
to "The event attribute is not necessary..."
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
one works at Cisco doesn't mean they would have any
awareness of the JABBER trademark. But we can chat about that off-list.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
On 7/31/12 2:58 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> If you have any comments about advancing XEP-0071 from Draft to Final,
> please provide them by the close of business on Friday, August 31, 2012.
Section 12.4 of XEP-0071 (version 1.4) reads in full:
###
12.4 W3C Review
The XHTML 1.0 Integ
ions to
address feedback received, after which it will be presented to the XMPP
Council for voting to a status of Final.
You can review the specification here:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html
Please send all feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list.
Thanks!
Peter
--
Pe
y in XEP-0045 at least.
I've always thought that #2 was the right approach, but I agree that we
might not have made that perfectly clear in XEP-0004 and the specs that
use data forms.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
FYI. Please post follow-ups to the sum...@xmpp.org list.
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/summit
/psa
Original Message
Subject: [Summit] XMPP summit in October...
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:21:40 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre
Reply-To: XMPP Summit
To: XMPP Summit
ence edits/moves, in approximately 15
> locations, no protocol changes over 0.4.
I see no harm in publishing 0.5 -- that way, folks will be reviewing the
latest and greatest.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
On 7/21/12 9:01 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>> Can someone else outside the R3TF also comment about the inclusion of a
>> small TTY/textphone paragraph in Interoperability considerations? (Yea's
>> and Nay's -- I know I've gotten a couple of Nay's
easonable; in any case, let's all review version 0.4 of XEP-0301
with that goal in mind.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_reset>.
> ___
I *think* that is fine, but I will look at the issue again once I've had
a chance to review both XEP-0301 0.4 and XEP-0308 in more detail.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
LL before the end of
> this
> > month (I was hoping for earlier, but there's been so much
> discussion), so we
> > can bring both 0301 and 0308 to Draft status roughly
> simultaneously -- I
> > will go ahead and immediately add the 'id' parameter to XEP-0301.
>
> I'm happy to ask for LC on 308.
>
>
> Ok, agreed.
>
> I am now extending XEP-0301 to support real-time retroactive editing,
> since it'll inflate the spec by only approximately two paragraphs or so.
> My goal is to send a v0.4 update to XEP-0301, and ask you to review it
> to tell me if you think it's ready for LAST CALL. If it is, then let's
> commence, shall we? :-)
Sounds good!
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
501 - 600 of 3395 matches
Mail list logo
