On Thu Jul 21 05:41:31 2011, Waqas Hussain wrote:
There's just one problem: This requires that vendors provide sane
data.
Vendors providing false or misleading data will get shot down soon
enough.
For commercial vendors (open source or not) such behaviour has legal
impacts, so the XSF ex
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Tue Jul 19 17:03:00 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> > My plan would be that implementers would host an XML
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Jul 19 17:03:00 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> > My plan would be that implementers would host an XML description of
>> > their compliance levels, which the XSF's
On Tue Jul 19 17:03:00 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> My plan would be that implementers would host an XML description
of
> their compliance levels, which the XSF's software listings would
> consume and render into the software l
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Jul 19 08:09:42 2011, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> FYI, I've created version 0.0.2 of this ProtoXEP:
> >>
> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012
On Tue Jul 19 08:09:42 2011, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI, I've created version 0.0.2 of this ProtoXEP:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html
I would prefer the 'Core' term to be left for the XMPP Core. XMPP
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI, I've created version 0.0.2 of this ProtoXEP:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html
I would prefer the 'Core' term to be left for the XMPP Core. XMPP is not
IM only, and 'Core server' seems a good name for
On 7/12/11 12:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/11/11 6:26 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:26 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2012
Abstract: This document defines XMPP prot
On 7/11/11 6:26 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:26 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor
> wrote:
>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>>
>> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2012
>>
>> Abstract: This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2012.
On 12 July 2011 07:03, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Jul 12 01:26:55 2011, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>
>> Why is BOSH included in the list when we say "* Support can be enabled
>> via an external component or an internal server module/plugin."? Any
>> XMPP compliant server would pass that, so there's
On Tue Jul 12 01:26:55 2011, Waqas Hussain wrote:
Why is BOSH included in the list when we say "* Support can be
enabled
via an external component or an internal server module/plugin."? Any
XMPP compliant server would pass that, so there's no point in making
this an explicit item.
Bear in min
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:26 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>
> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2012
>
> Abstract: This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2012.
>
> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/comp
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2012
Abstract: This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2012.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html
The XMPP Council will decide at its next meeting whether t
13 matches
Mail list logo
