Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

> Yes that is the topic at hand, isn't it? I would say that, if anything, adding > an implementation note that it is acceptable to include a in a RTT > update, and that it may be used to differentiate sessions in conjunction with > full JIDs would be sufficient. > +1 for this idea :) ~~~ Ash

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Lance Stout wrote: > I also see now that XEP-0301 6.4.3 touches on the MUC issue, using the > error recovery you described. The simultaneous login scenario in 6.4.3.2 > sounds like differentiating between full JIDs, and not the multiple nick > session scenario. If

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

> The question is: What to mention in XEP-0301? > Most of these are not spec-related issues... Yes that is the topic at hand, isn't it? I would say that, if anything, adding an implementation note that it is acceptable to include a in a RTT update, and that it may be used to differentiate se

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Lance Stout wrote: > XEP-0045 section 7.2.9. MUC participants who are not allowed to see the > actual JIDs of other participants will have issues recognizing the > situation. There would be two interleaved RTT streams, both from the full > JID "m...@rooms.example.

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

> In one of our chat clients we have developed it is possible for a user to > have what amounts to multiple conversations occurring at the same time with a > single other user (I.e. In our case a user can have multiple chat tabs open > to another user). > > Reading the 301 spec, there doesn't s

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

d just mention it. > > Ash > > From: Mark Rejhon > Reply-To: XMPP Standards > Date: Friday, 22 June 2012 20:56 > To: XMPP Standards > Subject: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. > (In-Band Real Time Text) > > Short Version: > *We want to upgrad

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

Date: Friday, 22 June 2012 20:56 To: XMPP Standards Subject: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text) Short Version: We want to upgrade XEP-0301 (Real Time Text) from "Experimental" Status to "Draft" Status. I'd li

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

6.4.5 already refers to XEP-0166 (JINGLE). XEP-0166 Abstract says "*This document describes implementation considerations related to audio codecs for use in Jingle RTP sessions.*" XEP-0199 Abstract says the same - except it refers to video codecs. (Note - XEP-0199 Status is still 'Experimental'.)

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

Op 23/06/2012 01:15, Edward Tie schreef: section 6.4.5 Any combination of audio, video, and real-time text MAY be used together simultaneously. It will be called to Total Conversation. Edward Tie Can you added : Total Conversation may use XEP-0266 audio^[12]

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

section 6.4.5 Any combination of audio, video, and real-time text MAY be used together simultaneously. It will be called to Total Conversation. Edward Tie

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

Op 22/06/2012 21:56, Mark Rejhon schreef: Short Version: *We want to upgrade XEP-0301 (Real Time Text) from "Experimental" Status to "Draft" Status. * *I'd like to hear your comments, edits for http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html * *I've already notified Peter. I'd like everybody's co

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

Op 22/06/2012 22:52, Peter Saint-Andre schreef: On 6/22/12 2:50 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: The goal is: *Deadline June 28-29: Last corrections submitted (before the Last Call request)* Early July: Publishing of XEP-0301 version 0.3 Immediately After: Request a Last Call and begin the process OK, t

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On 6/22/12 2:50 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > The goal is: > *Deadline June 28-29: Last corrections submitted (before the Last Call > request)* > Early July: Publishing of XEP-0301 version 0.3 > Immediately After: Request a Last Call and begin the process OK, thanks for making that clear. I'll work to

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> > I'm aware. We'd like to finish the current queue of >> > corrections/improvements (several of which have been queued up since >> > April) so one more big review cycle is very mu

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On 6/22/12 2:39 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > > > I'm aware. We'd like to finish the current queue of > > corrections/improvements (several of which have been queued up since > > April) so one more bi

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > I'm aware. We'd like to finish the current queue of > > corrections/improvements (several of which have been queued up since > > April) so one more big review cycle is very much appreciated before Last > > Call. > > Then after the next

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On 6/22/12 2:23 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Mark, as you know, the next step would be for the XMPP Council to issue > a Last Call in accordance with XEP-0001. Do you think the spec is ready > for a Last Call now, or would you prefer to receive additional reviews > beforehand? > > > I

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

> > Mark, as you know, the next step would be for the XMPP Council to issue > a Last Call in accordance with XEP-0001. Do you think the spec is ready > for a Last Call now, or would you prefer to receive additional reviews > beforehand? > I'm aware. We'd like to finish the current queue of correc

Re: [Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

On 6/22/12 1:56 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Short Version: > *We want to upgrade XEP-0301 (Real Time Text) from "Experimental" Status > to "Draft" Status. * > *I'd like to hear your comments, edits > for http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html * Mark, as you know, the next step would be for the

[Standards] Comments Needed: Upgrading XEP-0301 to Draft. (In-Band Real Time Text)

Short Version: *We want to upgrade XEP-0301 (Real Time Text) from "Experimental" Status to "Draft" Status. * *I'd like to hear your comments, edits for http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html * *I've already notified Peter. I'd like everybody's comments -- feel free to reply* Detailed Versi