It would be great to keep them consistent, but is it worth potentially breaking implementations? I think the main problem with accept was that the example was inconsistent with the text.
In fact, I very much doubt anyone should be using that option as xmpp mandates the use of utf-8, and I doubt anyone's using bosh for anything other than xmpp. Perhaps we should just look at getting rid of that attribute? -- Ash On 04/02/2013 10:30, "Steffen Larsen" <zoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >Cross-posted from the summit list (sorry making noise). >Here are my small notes to the BOSH action list (embedded). > > >/Steffen > >Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Peter Saint-Andre (psaintan)" <psain...@cisco.com> >> Subject: Re: [Summit] BOSH actions >> Date: February 2, 2013 10:18:01 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: XMPP Summit <sum...@xmpp.org> >> Cc: Bidirectional Streams Over Synchronous HTTP <b...@xmpp.org>, XMPP >>Summit <sum...@xmpp.org> >> Reply-To: XMPP Summit <sum...@xmpp.org> >> >> Maybe it would be better to take the technical discussion to the >>standards@ list? >> >> Sent from mobile, might be terse >> >> On Feb 2, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "Steffen Larsen" <zoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> Just saw the issue with the accept attribute. How about charset? It is >>>currently space separated in the example (and it also says) - but >>>should we not comma separate that like the accept attribute? >>> >>> Its on 7.2 in http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html: >>> charsets='ISO_8859-1 ISO-2022-JP' >>> -Just my 50 cent >>> >>> /Steffen >>> >>> On Feb 2, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Winfried Tilanus <winfr...@tilanus.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I updated the BOSH issues page with the results & and who will be >>>> writing patches. >>>> http://wiki.xmpp.org:12480/web/BoshIssues >>>> >>>> I only forgot who will be writing the patch for the first issue >>>>(remove >>>> Pipelining). Plz check if your name pops up at the correct places and >>>> ping me if there are any problems! >>>> >>>> happy patch-writing! >>>> >>>> Winfried >>> >
