On 2016-05-13 18:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the
>> clients have actually implemented the features they claim, and that in turn
>> means some volunteer effort in testing them thoug
> On 13 May 2016, at 17:30, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13 May 2016 at 17:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the
> > clients have actually implemented the features they claim, an
On 13 May 2016 at 17:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the
> clients have actually implemented the features they claim, and that in turn
> means some volunteer effort in testing them th
On 5/13/16 11:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
I'd love to do this. I think it needs to be a trademark rather than a
copyright, but yes. A trademarkable phrase and logo seems simplest.
If you're interested in something like this, I think there would be
important lessons to learn from the SIP Forum's "
On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the
> clients have actually implemented the features they claim, and that in turn
> means some volunteer effort in testing them though. I believe that any effort
> we put into t
On 13 May 2016 at 15:16, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> orthogonal to the current discussion of whats actually included in the
> compliance suite I have some other thoughts.
>
> XMPP has a huge image problem mainly because people are using either
> outdated servers and clients or offer incomplet
Hi,
orthogonal to the current discussion of whats actually included in the
compliance suite I have some other thoughts.
XMPP has a huge image problem mainly because people are using either
outdated servers and clients or offer incomplete APIs. (I'm not trying to
point fingers; but lets say you ru
> On 13 May 2016, at 14:16, Sam Whited wrote:
>
> As a compromise, perhapse it makes sense to split CSI out into a
> separate "Mobile Compliance" section? This might be something good to
> have in general.
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
I think that might be reasonable. I certainly have some issue
As a compromise, perhapse it makes sense to split CSI out into a
separate "Mobile Compliance" section? This might be something good to
have in general.
Thoughts appreciated.
—Sam
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I think most of these are highlighting issues with CSI, rath
I think most of these are highlighting issues with CSI, rather than issues
with including CSI within the Suite. Mostly, I think CSI is right - my
biggest gripe was always that it didn't include an element - but
it's clear to me that there's a few edge-cases and clarifications needed.
On 11 May 20
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
> I don't really understand the point of CSI being required for Advanced Client.
> Do non-mobile clients have to implement it and never send ? Or do
> servers have to disable all optimizations because enabling CSI is no longer an
> implicit "I
On 11 May 2016 at 06:23, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
> Lets look at the suggested optimizations from the XEP:
>
>> Suppress presence updates until the client becomes active again. On becoming
>> active, push the latest presence from each contact.
>
> This only makes sense if the client has no way to sho
> On 11 mei 2016, at 00:09, Matthew Wild wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2016 at 20:28, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 apr. 2016, at 08:35, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>>>
>>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>>>
>>> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2016
>
>> I don
On 10 May 2016 at 20:28, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
>
>> On 28 apr. 2016, at 08:35, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>>
>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>>
>> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2016
> I don't really understand the point of CSI being required for Advanced C
> On 28 apr. 2016, at 08:35, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>
> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>
> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2016
>
> Abstract:
> This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2016.
>
>
> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/i
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2016
Abstract:
This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2016.
URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2016.html
The XMPP Council will decide in the next two weeks
16 matches
Mail list logo
