On 06/13/2008 5:28 AM, Jonathan Dickinson wrote:
Sorry to be such a twat, but I have searched the specs for like .5hr in vain.
In S2S connections which of the following happens?
C1-S1: message xmlns=jabber:client/
S1-S2: message xmlns=jabber:server/ !-- Server namespace --
S2-C2: message
On 06/13/2008 8:51 AM, JabberForum wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;988 Wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you. The transformation from jabber:client to
jabber:server and back to jabber:client again is one of those ugly
aspects of XMPP, at least for server developers.
Peter
Hello,
ugly in which
On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:51 AM, JabberForum wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;988 Wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you. The transformation from jabber:client to
jabber:server and back to jabber:client again is one of those ugly
aspects of XMPP, at least for server developers.
ugly in which meaning? Simply
Safa Sofuoğlu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples include:
1. Concepts like file transfer and even instant messaging
2. Basic presence states like away
2008/6/13 Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Safa Sofuoğlu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples include:
1. Concepts like file transfer and even
On 06/13/2008 11:54 AM, Sander Devrieze wrote:
2008/6/13 Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Safa Sofuo�lu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Safa Sofuoğlu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples include:
1. Concepts like file transfer and even instant messaging
2.
On 06/13/2008 12:57 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Safa Sofuoğlu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples include:
1. Concepts like
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The question is: would it be helpful for multiple clients to use the
same translation file(s)?
Peter
That could prevent some miss-understanding between people who don't have
the same client.
--
Yann
___
JDev mailing list
On Jun 13, 2008, at 21:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The question is: would it be helpful for multiple clients to use the
same translation file(s)?
Maybe not the exact same files, but the same translations would be
great!
Semi-related: All localizable clients should implement this one, too:
On 06/13/2008 1:07 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The question is: would it be helpful for multiple clients to use the
same translation file(s)?
Peter
That could prevent some miss-understanding between people who don't have
the same client.
Agreed.
I may get
On 06/13/2008 1:14 PM, Andreas Monitzer wrote:
On Jun 13, 2008, at 21:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The question is: would it be helpful for multiple clients to use the
same translation file(s)?
Maybe not the exact same files, but the same translations would be
great!
Yes, exactly. We'd
2008/6/13 Yann Leboulanger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Safa Sofuoğlu (one of our GSoC students) mentioned to me that XMPP
clients need to provide localized versions of many protocol terms, but
that there is no consistency for those terms. Examples include:
1. Concepts like
Greetings,
I'm trying to figure out how it might be possible to successfully
initiate a SOCKS5 bytestream (XEP-0065) between two users in a
Semi-Anonymous chat room (XEP-0045).
The issue that I'm running into is that because the real JID of the
initiator is different than the JID the target is
14 matches
Mail list logo
