Daniel Noll wrote:
> On Friday 06 July 2007 01:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> We *could* do that with the video phone activity. It's a bit of a
>> borderline case, but IMHO it's going to be common enough that we want to
>> define a separate activity for it.
>
> Video phones may become common enou
On Friday 06 July 2007 01:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We *could* do that with the video phone activity. It's a bit of a
> borderline case, but IMHO it's going to be common enough that we want to
> define a separate activity for it.
Video phones may become common enough one day (when Cisco stop
Daniel Noll wrote:
>> Daniel Noll wrote:
>>> doesn't really matter to me. They're all phones.
>> If I'm on an audio call, I might be able to IM with you in the
>> background without the other person knowing. But I can't very well get
>> away with that on a video call. So I think the distinction pr
> Daniel Noll wrote:
>> doesn't really matter to me. They're all phones.
>
> If I'm on an audio call, I might be able to IM with you in the
> background without the other person knowing. But I can't very well get
> away with that on a video call. So I think the distinction provides
> useful infor
Daniel Noll wrote:
>> Someone poked me about adding the following activity to XEP-0108:
>>
>> talking/on_video_phone
>>
>> Which seems reasonable and I'm happy to add it to the spec. But it
>> strikes me that we might just want to have a registry for this kind of
>> thing, eh? :)
>
> A registry wo
> Someone poked me about adding the following activity to XEP-0108:
>
> talking/on_video_phone
>
> Which seems reasonable and I'm happy to add it to the spec. But it
> strikes me that we might just want to have a registry for this kind of
> thing, eh? :)
A registry would be nice, but mind you, I
