On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
What I was implying was, most deployed software is not following the
'message-with-subject-but-no-body' rule, and is following the
'message-with-subject-is-a-subject' rule. Making the latter wrong and
the former right
On 9/29/11 1:59 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
What I was implying was, most deployed software is not following the
'message-with-subject-but-no-body' rule, and is following the
'message-with-subject-is-a-subject' rule. Making
On 9/29/11 10:50 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 28.09.2011 19:25, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/28/11 2:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indeed; M-Link actually turns these off by defaultfor users who are
anonymous (but has a configurable to turn them back on).
Some
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
3. Service changing room nick
I'd like some text
On 9/28/11 2:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 27 22:28:49 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hmm, doesn't forwarding IQs be a problem for semianonymous rooms?
Especially for things like vcard?
Indeed; M-Link actually turns these off by defaultfor users who are
anonymous (but has a
On 9/28/11 8:40 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
3. Service
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
5. Both subject/ and body/ in a single message
(A message with a subject/ and a body/ is a legitimate message,
but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject
On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I think one ought to allow for extension elements in the subject change
message. For instance, say the subject change message is delayed at an
occupant's server, which hence adds a delay/ element. Hence, I think it
should be a subject/
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
3. Service changing room nick
I'd like some text stating that a service can change the occupant's
nick at any time, including room join. An occupant MUST listen for
status
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
I note that this feature has no disco feature defined.
MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
decide whether that's a good thing or a bad
On 9/27/11 7:38 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
I note that this feature has no disco feature defined.
MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
decide
On 9/27/11 7:29 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
3. Service changing room nick
I'd like some text stating that a service can change the occupant's
nick at any time, including room
On 9/27/11 3:28 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 27.09.2011 15:29, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
11. Full-to-bare JID rewriting to support vCards
All(?) implementations are doing it, but it's not specified anywhere.
Should it be?
Yes, it should. Proposed text would be appreciated.
Err... a
On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
No, but maybe adding some muc-features
Waqas, thanks for the review. Comments inline. I will push out an
updated version sometime this week, once we settle a few of these issues.
On 9/19/11 11:34 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I've completed a round of revisions
On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
5. Both subject/ and body/ in a single message
(A message with a subject/ and a body/ is a legitimate message,
but it SHALL NOT be interpreted as a subject change.)
I object to this. It complicates subject handling. I believe much
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
No, but maybe adding some muc-features which are making it obvious what
is
On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
No, but maybe adding some muc-features which are making it obvious what
is supported by the server is an option. I don't know if there is an
implemention
Am 20.09.2011 22:06, schrieb Waqas Hussain:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Hollerhol...@ahsoftware.de wrote:
Since sending a private messages to administrators is always possible (even
without voice), I think there isn't really a need for this feature.
That's not true. PMs to
Am 20.09.2011 00:46, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Holler hol...@ahsoftware.de wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 00:46, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
No, but maybe adding some muc-features which are making it obvious what
is supported by the server is an option. I don't know if there is an
implemention which supports e.g. those voice-requests as
On 9/6/11 8:17 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:37 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
If using a form
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than a request for membership. ;)
In fact I would suggest to replace both with an unified request for
affiliation which should work like the
On 8/31/11 11:41 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request. E.g.
the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work with either
ejabberd or M-Link (
On 8/19/11 1:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 18.08.2011 23:00, schrieb Alexander Holler:
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3
On 8/18/11 3:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on
Am 19.09.2011 20:49, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 8/18/11 3:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3
Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
- Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
- Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners
and admins are not reserved automatically, unless an implementation
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than a request for membership. ;)
In fact I would suggest to replace both with an unified
On 9/19/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
- Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
- Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners
and admins are not
On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:23, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/6/11 10:38 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Looking again at XEP-0045,
I don't see a reason why a request for voice should be handled in
another way than a request for membership. ;)
In fact I would
Am 20.09.2011 00:44, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/19/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 20:47, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
- Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
- Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these revisions
Am 05.09.2011 13:00, schrieb Dave Cridland:
On Wed Aug 31 18:41:15 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
...
2. The service has to parse and translate every request into a form
which is then presented to moderators. The
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
If using a form is wanted, the correct way would be that the user
requests a form for the request from the server, and sends back the
result, which is
Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
If using a form is wanted, the correct way would be that the user
requests a form for the request from the server,
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:37 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 06.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 09:24 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
[..]
I don't see any reason why the user should send a form to the server.
If using a form is wanted, the correct way would
On Wed Aug 31 18:41:15 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request.
E.g. the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work
with either ejabberd or
Just to summarize the problems I see with those requests (to change
affiliation):
1. I haven't found out how the user has to build such an request. E.g.
the request for voice as described in the XEP doesn't work with either
ejabberd or M-Link ( or I did something wrong during my short tests
On 8/23/11 6:34 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 11:23, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hello,
[..]
And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
requests a form is send by the user to room, which the room
Le 18/08/2011 15:43, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in
an effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the
last version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these
revisions before the end of September
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hello,
[..]
And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
requests a form is send by the user to room, which the room then
forwards to moderators, and the moderators will see the form with the
room as
Am 23.08.2011 11:23, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
Hello,
[..]
And in my list before, I've forgotten to mention the problem that for
requests a form is send by the user to room, which the room then
forwards to moderators, and the moderators
Hello,
I've just seen another glitch in XEP-0045 which contributes to the
confusion of readers. In 8.2 (Kicking an occupant)
'harfl...@henryv.shakespeare.lit' is used as name for the room. I
suggest to change this at least to 'harfl...@chat.shakespeare.lit' to
express that 'harfleur' is the
46 matches
Mail list logo
