Hi Dave,
a) It retains some level of compatibility, please see Implementation Notes.
It is possible to use 0045 protocol for most of the functionality in
transition period. "Substantial chunk of work" is not very precise. In our
case the initial implementation that did not support 0045
On 14 December 2015 at 16:04, Piotr Nosek
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> a) It retains some level of compatibility, please see Implementation
> Notes. It is possible to use 0045 protocol for most of the functionality in
> transition period. "Substantial chunk of work" is
, that is likely to be confused with the
> brightness emitted by the sun and glowing objects, IMHO.
>
> Best,
> Adán
>
>
> Mensaje original
> De: Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>
> Fecha:14/12/2015 07:09 PM (GMT+01:00)
> Para: XMPP Standards
2015-12-14 16:16 GMT+00:00 Dave Cridland :
>
>
> No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over this
> protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written service. The result
> is that existing '45 features are lost entirely.
>
The service identifies
Hi,
2015-12-14 17:06 GMT+00:00 Tobias M :
>
> On 14.12.2015, at 17:56, Stefan Strigler
> wrote:
>
> if you want to do IQ with members of a room in the context of MUC Light
> you would do so by addressing them directly since there is no
Tobias,
if you want to do IQ with members of a room in the context of MUC Light you
would do so by addressing them directly since there is no concept of
anonymous or semi-anonymous rooms.
Cheers, Stefan
2015-12-14 16:39 GMT+00:00 Tobias M :
>
> On 14.12.2015, at
On 14 December 2015 at 17:08, Stefan Strigler
wrote:
>
> 2015-12-14 16:16 GMT+00:00 Dave Cridland :
>
>>
>>
>> No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over
>> this protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written
ightness
emitted by the sun and glowing objects, IMHO.
Best,
Adán
Mensaje original
De: Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>
Fecha:14/12/2015 07:09 PM (GMT+01:00)
Para: XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org>
Cc:
Asunto: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-Us
This is quite a substantial protocol, but has, I think, two issues which
mean it is problematic to accept in my opinion:
a) It is not just presence-less MUC. It's an entirely new protocol which is
incompatible with existing XEP-0045. Even the room affiliation model is
different, allowing for
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Multi-User Chat Light
Abstract: This specification provides a presence-less standard for Multi-User
Chats. Its feature set is a response to mobile XMPP applications needs and
specific environment.
URL:
Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 18:39:38 CEST, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Multi-User Chat Light
Abstract: This specification provides a presence-less standard
for Multi-User Chats. Its feature set is a response to mobile
11 matches
Mail list logo