ssage-
> From: Joakim Eriksson [mailto:joak...@sics.se]
> Sent: den 20 februari 2014 13:12
> To: Peter Waher; XMPP Standards
> Cc: joak...@sics.se <mailto:joak...@sics.se>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-323 timestamp
>
> Yes, the grouping is reasonable,
presented by an element and a level in the hierarchy.
Best regards,
Peter Waher
-Original Message-
From: Joakim Eriksson [mailto:joak...@sics.se]
Sent: den 20 februari 2014 13:12
To: Peter Waher; XMPP Standards
Cc: joak...@sics.se
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-323 timestamp
Yes, the grou
grouping feature
of the timestamp element.
Best regards,
Peter Waher
-Original Message-
From: Joakim Eriksson [mailto:joak...@sics.se]
Sent: den 19 januari 2014 17:44
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: [Standards] XEP-323 timestamp
I think that the XEP-323 timestamp is a bit strange.
I would have
scribed by the timestamp, and here you see the grouping feature
of the timestamp element.
Best regards,
Peter Waher
-Original Message-
From: Joakim Eriksson [mailto:joak...@sics.se]
Sent: den 19 januari 2014 17:44
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: [Standards] XEP-323 timestamp
I think that the XEP
perhaps the naming fieldvalues would be better in that case
I would also like the possibility of omitting the timestamp on the
surrounding and have timestamp on each value
*Regards*
Joachim Lindborg
CTO, systems architect
Sustainable Innovation SUST.se
Barnhusgata
I think that the XEP-323 timestamp is a bit strange.
I would have a set of measurements or sensor data with
an extra attribute / meta data which is the timestamp.
But in XEP-323 is looks like the timestamp is the top node:
So in this case
