-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/14/09 10:35 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
What I would prefer:
1. An Asynchronous Ad-Hoc Commands XEP.
>>> I agree that it makes sense to split the asynchronicity stuff out of
>>> XEP-0244 into a separate spec -- perhaps a new XEP but I t
>> > What I would prefer:
>> >
>> > 1. An Asynchronous Ad-Hoc Commands XEP.
>>
>> I agree that it makes sense to split the asynchronicity stuff out of
>> XEP-0244 into a separate spec -- perhaps a new XEP but I think
>> preferably a revised version of XEP-0050 so that everything about the
>> core o
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/6/09 12:28 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>
> > Now with the short answers out of the way, I do have some concerns.
> >
> > The specification does three things: One, it defines a way to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/6/09 12:28 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> Now with the short answers out of the way, I do have some concerns.
>
> The specification does three things: One, it defines a way to do ad-hoc
> commands asynchronously (possibly across user sessions). Two,
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Egon Willighagen <
egon.willigha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Wasaq,
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> > Some problems with the XEP:
> >
> > 1. The XEP basically allows a service to expose a set of global
> functions.
> > There is no possibi
Dear Wasaq,
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> Some problems with the XEP:
>
> 1. The XEP basically allows a service to expose a set of global functions.
> There is no possibility for function namespaces. This is similar to the SOAP
> over XMPP XEP, where you can have only one
Some short answers:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or
to clarify an existing protocol?
Yes.
> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and
requirements?
Yes.
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code?
Egon Willighagen schrieb:
Hi all,
not sure I am supposed to reply to this as author of the XEP, but here
goes... I hope it will trigger more replies to the call.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or
>> to clarify an existing protocol?
>> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and
>> requirements?
Yes to both. The s
Hi all,
not sure I am supposed to reply to this as author of the XEP, but here
goes... I hope it will trigger more replies to the call.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to
> clarify an exi
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0244 (IO
Data).
Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for handling
the input to and output from a remote entity.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0244.html
This Last Call begins today and shall
11 matches
Mail list logo
