Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 7/27/12 8:19 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: "The event attribute MAY be omitted from the element during regular real-time text transmission" - what is the the alternative you're allowing clients, and what is "regular real-time text transmission"? >>> >>> [Change made] >>> Clarifica

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 7/23/12 1:17 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > [Question] > Understood -- animation really helps explains real-time text, if they > haven't seen it before. > Can we use a more well-known site (i.e. realtimetext.org > ?) since we can put my animations there too? > Alternatively,

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Gunnar Hellström > wrote: >>> >>> No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine >>> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message >>> the >>> edits belong to. Why do

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Gunnar Hellström wrote: >> >> No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine >> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message >> the >> edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict >> requirements

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-27 23:48, Mark Rejhon wrote: No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message the edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict requirements are usually much more fruitful. B

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > On 2012-07-27 23:24, Mark Rejhon wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström >> wrote: >>> >>> No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine >>> presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to kn

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-27 23:24, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström wrote: No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message the edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many opti

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > No, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine > presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message the > edits belong to. Why do you want to introduce so many options? Strict > requirements are usuall

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

Further comments inline, On 2012-07-27 21:00, Mark Rejhon wrote: Unicode talk and 'seq' talk replied to, under their appropriate thread titles -- to compartmentalize the topics better. (those are potentially contentious items during reviews) "The event attribute MAY be omitted from the element

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

Unicode talk and 'seq' talk replied to, under their appropriate thread titles -- to compartmentalize the topics better. (those are potentially contentious items during reviews) > "The event attribute MAY be omitted from the element during > regular real-time text transmission" - what is the the a

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-27 16:19, Mark Rejhon wrote: "The bounds of seq is 31-bits, the range of positive values of a signed integer" - I'd be inclined to make this something like "The seq attribute has an upper bound of 2147483647 (2^31 - 1). If this upper bound is reached the following RTT element will res

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > I think 'real time text' is a less contentious term than 'real > Jabber', I'd feel a bit happier with a link there instead. [Change Made] It now links to realtimetext.org instead of realjabber.org There's already an old animation there; it'll

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

I think this mail gets me up to date. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Due to the large number of comments from a key person at XSF (you) I agree > with you.I have many comments and questions for you first, that I'd like > you to address. I will reply in two emails -- thi

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > here), but this email aims to reduce workload for Kevin. Thanks. > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > I believe that this email addresses most of Kevin's concerns for > section 1-5, with the exception of the Unicode conce

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Lance Stout wrote: > " The element is transmitted at regular intervals by the sender > client while a message is being composed" > > > If we're going to be picky about what the first example demonstrates, it > should probably also be noted in this sentence that t

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

More changes made, after thought and consultations. I think I've now addressed 90% of the section 1-5 concerns by Kevin. Some small unanswered questions in the original email (not included here), but this email aims to reduce workload for Kevin. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Lance Stout wrote: > " The element is transmitted at regular intervals by the sender > client while a message is being composed" > > If we're going to be picky about what the first example demonstrates, it > should probably also be noted in this sentence that the

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

> " The element is transmitted at regular intervals by the sender client > while a message is being composed" If we're going to be picky about what the first example demonstrates, it should probably also be noted in this sentence that the regular intervals are intended to be temporal, and not

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > Both Kevin and me detected the little logic gap in the text of section > 4.1 and the example. > That's because you two are smart implementers. You have to factor in all implementers - Implementers who just

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-24 19:21, Mark Rejhon wrote: [About changing XEP-0301 introductory example to transmit fragmented words versus whole words] On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mark Rejhon > wrote: Right now, votes are roughly evenly split (half a dozen Yea's, and ha

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

[About changing XEP-0301 introductory example to transmit fragmented words versus whole words] On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Right now, votes are roughly evenly split (half a dozen Yea's, and half a > dozen Nay's over the last 2 years) > Note -- this includes offline dis

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > I agree > > the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make > little sense to add this here and confuse the discussion. You can't do > word by word without XEP-0301 == and if doing XEP-0301 you can do NT or >

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

BUT.. I think about different languages about chinese , thais. If you make wrong word. (invalid word), you need correct this word with back. Op 24/07/2012 17:31, Gregg Vanderheiden schreef: I agree the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make little sense to add

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

I agree the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented. It make little sense to add this here and confuse the discussion. You can't do word by word without XEP-0301 == and if doing XEP-0301 you can do NT or WbWord or SbSentence or CbClause whatever you want. But I would not

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-24 01:41, Mark Rejhon wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Gunnar Hellström mailto:gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se>> wrote: On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote: Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated by not cutting at the word boun

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Gunnar Hellström < gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote: > > Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated by not >> cutting at the word boundaries "He", "llo, m", "y Juliet!" maybe, or >> something like that.

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote: Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated by not cutting at the word boundaries "He", "llo, m", "y Juliet!" maybe, or something like that. Experience and/or cynicism say that implementers are quite likely to look at the ex