On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/16/10 3:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>
>> I'd love that. Not having a fixed timestamp was one reason last
>> activity didn't make it into XEP-0227 (IIRC it was the only data
>> servers commonly stored which didn't make it into the cur
On 7/16/10 3:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> I'd love that. Not having a fixed timestamp was one reason last
> activity didn't make it into XEP-0227 (IIRC it was the only data
> servers commonly stored which didn't make it into the current version
> of the XEP). The relative-to-now time it currently
On 7/16/10 4:06 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
> The W3C standard for 'dateTime' is defined here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
>
> which is based on ISO 8601:2000 Second Edition 2000-12-15.
>
> The extensions should probably reference these definitions.
They do, see XEP-0082: XMPP D
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
>> other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
>>
>> >id='last1'
>>to='ro...@montague.net/or
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
> other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
>
> id='last1'
> to='ro...@montague.net/orchard'
> type='result'>
>
>
>
> vs.
>
> from='jul..
There's an inconsistency between last activity (XEP-0012) and various
other time-related specs (XEPs 82, 202, 203). Consider:
vs.
-06:00
2006-12-19T17:58:35Z
anon!
xa
1
We see this clearly in XEP-0256:
away
I wonder if we want to add a UTC timestamp
