Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
4. This indeed is the worst of IRC brought to XMPP.
Nice! What's needed to bring the *best* of IRC to XMPP?
Does the co-authors welcome from
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2010-February/002757.html also
apply to old IRC folks?
philipp
Dave Cridland typeth:
| Let me also clarify - if we could send IM presence once over a link
| and have fan-out controlled by a foreign domain, I'd be happy with
| it. But I don't think that's a practical option, given that it
| requires greater trust between domains, and prevents various
On 2/24/10 2:31 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
4. This indeed is the worst of IRC brought to XMPP.
Nice! What's needed to bring the *best* of IRC to XMPP?
Does the co-authors welcome from
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2010-February/002757.html also
Dave Cridland wrote:
[...]
In http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/muc/2010-February/000144.html you say
Another distinction between the two approaches is what the core aims
are - in PSA-style, it's to provide resilience between servers,
whereas in KD-style, it's largely to reduce redundant
FYI.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Subject: Meeting minutes 2010-02-15
To: XMPP Council
Agenda: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2010-February/002756.html
Log: Sent previously by Peter
Scribe: Kev
1) Roll call.
Kev,
Kevin Smith wrote:
[...]
8) Distributed MUC
http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/distributedmuc.html
Accept as XEP?
Kev offers to send around a mail about an alternative approach to
possibly update this proposal with.
Kev, Matt and Ralph had no objections to publishing as-is, further
discussion
On 2/18/10 6:44 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
[...]
8) Distributed MUC
http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/distributedmuc.html
Accept as XEP?
Kev offers to send around a mail about an alternative approach to
possibly update this proposal with.
Kev, Matt and Ralph had no
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
2. Compression makes multicast structures unnecessary.
It does? A lot of people are skeptical about the argument oh don't
worry about how verbose this is, compression will solve the problem.
Indeed. Does anyone have statistics? I think we should rely on
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 14:51, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
2. Compression makes multicast structures unnecessary.
It does? A lot of people are skeptical about the argument oh don't
worry about how verbose this is, compression will solve the problem.
Maybe that's true from a
On Thu Feb 18 13:44:02 2010, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
[...]
8) Distributed MUC
http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/distributedmuc.html
Accept as XEP?
Kev offers to send around a mail about an alternative approach to
possibly update this proposal with.
Kev, Matt and Ralph had no
On 18.02.2010, at 14:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
2. Compression makes multicast structures unnecessary.
It does? A lot of people are skeptical about the argument oh don't
worry about how verbose this is, compression will solve the problem.
It doesn't make multicast structures unnecessary.
On Thu Feb 18 14:47:22 2010, Tobias Markmann wrote:
On 18.02.2010, at 14:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
2. Compression makes multicast structures unnecessary.
It does? A lot of people are skeptical about the argument oh
don't
worry about how verbose this is, compression will solve the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
2) Pubsub.
Votes outstanding from Dave, Matt, Ralph and Remko.
Discussion about iq stanzas for delivery, how they don't give
guaranteed delivery, and how XEP-0198 is a solution to the guaranteed
delivery problem.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Fabio Forno fabio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
2) Pubsub.
Votes outstanding from Dave, Matt, Ralph and Remko.
Discussion about iq stanzas for delivery, how they don't give
guaranteed delivery,
14 matches
Mail list logo
