> -Original Message-
> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Sergey Dobrov
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:48 AM
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
>
> (Arrows show a direction in which presences and eve
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org]
> On
> >> Behalf Of Sergey Dobrov
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:06 AM
> >> To: standards@xmpp.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
> >>
> Anyway, what is your suggestion to
> -Original Message-
> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Sergey Dobrov
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:06 AM
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
>
> 1. No, I can't.
> 2. Even if we will extend XEP-16 tha
> -Original Message-
> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Cridland
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: XMPP Standards
> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
>
> But it has other applications, as well - push notifications
> -Original Message-
> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Sergey Dobrov
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:29 AM
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
>
> On 01/06/2012 11:12 PM,
> -Original Message-
> From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Sergey Dobrov
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 3:37 AM
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] PEP and PubSub
>
> It seems strange to me that working of few protocols th
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rejhon [mailto:marky...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:38 PM
> To: XMPP Standards
> Cc: Stephen Pendleton
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Review: XEP-: In-Band Real Time Text
>
> - Reliable out-of-band (for many o
u.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Rejhon [mailto:marky...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:09 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Cc: Stephen Pendleton
Subject: Re: [Standards] Review: XEP-: In-Band Real Time Text
Hello Stephen -- I actually covered that in section 1.2 of the first
draft attempt standard :-)
...
I believe that AIM currently supports realtime typing, but it requires a direct
connection between the clients to make it work. Have you considered an
"out-of-band" solution to this problem? I am not sure how well this current
implementation will work with rate limited XMPP servers.
Also, I thi
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Guus der Kinderen
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:36 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback
>I would not like to depend solely on ATOM (as Stephen suggests) as I'm
still not comfortable with
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:24 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback
On Fri Jul 16 16:58:22 2010, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>There is a sch
I've done some implementation of the XEP and have done some basic
interoperability testing with other implementers. I ran into some issues due
to the fact where it is not clear which stanzas are required and which are
optional. For example, is the stanza element required in the
and stanzas? I wo
>- The element is more or less lost in the geo data. It also
>doesn't take into account the possibility of publishing geolocation to
>certain roster groups only.
I've implemented this partially on the server and mobile client sides. I
think that the "publish" element (option?) isn't needed. P
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Laurent Eschenauer
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 6:58 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Could anyone using XMPP-0277 or PEP help us test
our Onesocialweb implementation ?
>In our implementat
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Laurent Eschenauer
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:00 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Could anyone using XMPP-0277 or PEP help us test
our Onesocialweb implementation ?
>I think that the pro
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of kael
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:36 AM
To: standards@xmpp.org
Subject: Re: [Standards] Could anyone using XMPP-0277 or PEP help us test
our Onesocialweb implementation ?
On 03/29/20
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:52 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
>It is, but that's an explicit subscription to a PEP node, so if
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:19 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
>If you're just asking how you can have two different microblog
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Florian Zeitz
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:58 PM
To: standards@xmpp.org
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
On 12.04.2010 23:45, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>Maybe my v
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Nathan Fritz
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:12 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
>I think the disconnect you're having is that Pubsub isn't for IM
>
sage-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
Down this path lies http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0119.html, which has been
fully obsoleted
That does look promising...the only issue is that you would need to retrieve
all the meta-data for every node in order to find the one you were
interested in OR there would need to be a search mechanism to find it. The
XEP suggests Jabber Search, but I don't see any examples of how to use it to
sea
>This is why PEP was invented. It is intended to be pubsub for each
>user. Discoverable, easy.
Right, PEP works well along with XEP-0080. However for certain applications
PEP is not a good fit. For example I may want to add additional ACL's beyond
what most roster PEP implementation give me or t
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Tuomas Koski
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:15 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
Hi Stephen,
On 8 April 2010 17:45, Stephen Pendleton wrote
Hello, I've been focusing on getting multiple implementations of XEP-0080
(geolocation) enabled clients to be interoperable. This is easy to do using
the PEP method described in XEP-0080, but is much more cloudy when using
non-PEP pubsub. For example, if I wanted to publish my latitidue/longitude
w
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Nathan Fritz
Sent: 09/29/2009 12:21 PM
To: inte...@xmpp.org; XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: [Standards] XSF Server Test Suite
I'm double posting this to standards and interop,
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Marko A. Rodriguez
Sent: 09/28/2009 5:56 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Linked Process Protocol
NOTE: Josh and I are reviewing Ad-Hoc commands as
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Joshua Shinavier
Sent: 09/24/2009 2:43 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Linked Process Protocol
>Good question. For one thing, we designed and impl
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Jason
Sent: 07/31/2009 4:32 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] "XEP-0248: PubSub,Collection Nodes"
.
I sincerely hope this group considers ammending this xep.
Cheers.
--
You might be interested in XEP-0255 (Location Query). I think that has what
you want.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Nicolas Vérité
Sent: 07/21/2009 6:15 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: [Standards] XEP-0080: User
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Will Thompson
Sent: 04/23/2009 1:51 PM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: [Standards] XEP-0816 (Invisible Command) mandates ridiculous UI
Hi,
I was just glancing over XEP-0186, and I noticed t
>> Q5. The client and server communicate via SOAP or a SOAP like XML
>> based
> transactional protocol over TCP, correct?
>Not at all. The protocol on the wire is a pseudo-XML "streaming" protocol,
which uses the nesting of XML >tags for framing. Messages, presence
information and other queries
may want to use this XEP to query location info of
other reference points (maybe another users IP or the last few IP addresses
that were encountered?)
THanks
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Stephen Pendleton
Sent: 02/13/2
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Helge Timenes
Sent: 02/13/2009 1:24 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: [Standards] XEP-0255: Location Query
Just a heads up notice:
As suggested by Stephen Pendleton I plan to add ip
eaking change. Do any one have an opinion or
preference?
-original message-
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0255: Location Query
From: "Stephen Pendleton"
Date: 04/02/2009 16:49
Also, can you add "ip" as one of the beacon types in Table 2? That would
cover one of the use ca
Also, can you add "ip" as one of the beacon types in Table 2? That would
cover one of the use cases.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Helge Timenes
Sent: 02/03/2009 6:55 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standard
I'm on board with that too. So IP would be:
208.99.11.22
ip
-Original Message-
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Simon Tennant
Sent: 01/27/2009 9:20 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0255 (Locat
What about adding another optional element to the query to allow the lookup
of location information based on IP address?:
127.88.22.22
Sometimes IP address is "good enough" for applications.
Thanks
Some comments I have on 0255 during implementation:
- XEP-0080 uses , , instead of , ... so
the examples need to be changed. The schema looks right though.
- Is Example 7 allowed in XMPP/pubsub? It looks like the component is
publishing to the entities node. I suppose there is nothing wron
Very cool.
Are you really using arc-minutes as units of the GPS error?
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: standards@xmpp.org> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008
> 21:15:16 -0600> Subject: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Location Query>
> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: standards@xmpp.org> Date: Thu, 8 May 2008
> 13:31:38 -0400> Subject: Re: [Standards] stream restarts> These are not
> compelling reasons to introduce a change to a protocol> already in wide use.
> You cannot "clean up" an existing protocol, only> make it messier
May 2008 16:18:26 +0100> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> standards@xmpp.org> Subject: Re: [Standards] stream restarts> > On Thu May 8
> 16:10:27 2008, Stephen Pendleton wrote:> > I'm not sure what architecture you
> are using, but aren't you doing > >
I'm not sure what architecture you are using, but aren't you doing something
like:
- read socket (TLS is handled at the socket layer)
- unwrap sasl if sasl has been negotiated
- uncompress if XEP-0138 compression has been negotiated
- present ascii XML to XML parser
I also don't see why you can'
I don't understand why you would be concerned if what was flowing through the
socket was a mix of ascii then "binary" data. When all is said and done the XML
parser sees XML. The TLS and compression is handled outside of the parser, in
other layers. The XML parser doesn't need to know anything a
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 17:19:44 +0100> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> standards@xmpp.org> Subject: Re: [Standards] stream restarts> > On Wed May 7
> 15:58:40 2008, Stephen Pendleton wrote:> > Will you explain why you think
> this?> > (I won't as
Will you explain why you think this?
Thanks
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: standards@xmpp.org> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008
> 14:56:45 -0700> Subject: Re: [Standards] stream restarts> > On Tuesday 06 May
> 2008 12:37 pm, Alexander Gnauck wrote:> > * gets us closer to "real xml"> >
> I'd have thoug
As a mobile client author I would be really in favor of this. It always seemed
inelegant to restart streams and requires a parser reset. It also makes the
state machine that describes the connection procedure less complicated and we
always try to make things simple on the XMPP client side at lea
Well the main problem I have with google's writeup at
http://code.google.com/p/bxmpp/ is that the example has extra spaces in the
tags. For example:
should be:
Thats like a 13% reduction right there if stream compression is turned off! I
guess when you spend billions on data centers you d
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?
>
> On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> > I don't see why this is silly. As it says in t
I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful in
situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived TCP
connection to an XMPP server.
Also, BOSH uses TCP in most scenarios so we need to be careful when discussing
"switching between BOSH and TCP
50 matches
Mail list logo
